Australia Concealed Colony 1

Institute for

Constitutional Education and Research Inc.

A.R.B.N. A0037928M

The permanent Representative of

Subject: The Institute for Constitutional Education and Research Inc.

Dear Ambassador,

The Institute was founded by a group of informed and concerned Australians after inputs
from thousands of citizens. The common denominator to all complainants was easily identifiable. They
had all been subjugated to British colonial law and they had no access to recourse by way of civil rights.
On examination it becomes clear that this was occurring because the Politicians and the Courts choose to
uphold colohial law, even though it is contrary to all aspects of domestic and international law, so as to
preserve their own power base.

Being aware of certain facts of history individuals have, on the basis of a collection of original documents
of history, entered into a concerted exercise to cause those assuming the power to govern and adjudicate
over the people to bring about the adjustments necessary to correct the situation. However, Politicians
continue to make false statements while the Courts refuse to argue the position.

The only recourse now available to the people is through the international community by way of an appeal
for the upholding of the Charter of the United Nations with regard to the principle of self determination of
all peoples.

Apart from that, all that is left is the application of civil unrest under section 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations. Such is the unrest across the nation that it is believed, in some quarters, that this will lead to civil
war.

In short, it is known that in 1917 Britain promised Australia independence and that this was effected
without fanfare in 1919. Australia became a member of the International Labour Organisation in 1919,
membership only being open to sovereign nations. In 1920 Australia became a Member State of the
League of Nations, while in 1921 the British Government again declared Australia to be an independent
nation. As such, in 1922 Australia refused a request from the United Kingdom for armed assistance with
regard to Kemal Ataturk. While in 1923 the British Government again confirmed that, as an independent
nation, Australia had the power to make international treaties. In 1926, it was declared that Australia was
an independent nation state of the British Commonwealth of Nations and in 1931 the United Kingdom
legislated that it no longer had legislative power over Australia. In 1945, Australia became a Member State
of the United Nations.

Yet in 1999 we still have the same colonial system that we had in 1900 with the Politicians and judiciary
providing verbal and signed allegiance to the Westminster Parliament.

Hundreds of people across Australia have, in their own way, attempted to correct this long standing
anomaly using every measure available to them short of actual civil war. For their troubles many of-them
have had their lives and livelihoods destroyed. It is fair to say they are all angry.

The Institute is about assembling a documented record of both the historical facts and the contemporary
attempts of the people to bring about a facility which will permit them to exercise their right to self
determination.

It is from this data that the founders of the Institute have chosen to compile and advance an appeal to the
international community by way of the United Nations. We prejptrflmd commend to you the document
‘AUSTRALIA the Concealed colony’.

F J Coningham Ph.D.

For the founders and on behalf of ail Australians.

25th August 1 999

PO Box 9112
Seaford Delivery Centre
Seaford VIC 3198’

Tel (03) 8796 3861
(03) 8796 3862
Fax (03) 8796 3322

Institute for

Constitutional Education and Research Inc.

A.R.B.N. A0037928M

26 August 1999
Permanent Representative of

Subject: Document ‘AUSTRALIA the Concealed colony.’

Dear Ambassador,

The accompanying submission is offered, through you, to the sovereign peoples of your Nation
State by, and in the name of, the federated peoples which constitutes the Nation State, the Commonwealth of
Australia.

This document amply illustrates that because the Parliament of the United Kingdom has failed to repeal its
colonial legislation, 'An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’ (UK) 1900, the sovereign people of
Australia have been denied, and continue to be denied, their right to self determination.

Instead the Australian people continue to be governed under exactly the same system of government and the same
colonial law which was imposed on them by Britain in 1900.

Indeed the document demonstrates that all members of the Australian Parliament and the Australian Senate have
sworn and subscribed to an oath of allegiance, not to their own nation, but to Queen Elizabeth II in the
sovereignty of the United Kingdom!

It also illustrates that the powers of subjugation inherent in that Act of British law have been assumed by those
same Parliamentary representatives as well as the organs of administration which the Parliament has, in turn,
created. And that, indeed, through the persistent denial of a right to access civil rights, those powers of
subjugation have in fact intensified.

The submission not only exposes the invalidity of the ‘Australian Government’ it also relates the persistent deceit
and chicanery which has been entered into by individuals, both British and Australian, that the true state of affairs
may be concealed from the ‘ordinary’ citizen as well as the world at large.

The document demonstrates that every available domestic avenue for the rectification of the situation has been
explored and tested. And that this persistence has even extended to the submission of an application and petition
to the International Court of Justice. An application which could not proceed in the light of the United
Kingdom’s refusal to respond.

It is now apparent that, short of violent action, the last resort open to the Australian people in their quest for self
determination lies in an appeal to all Member States of the United Nations to honour their commitment under the
Charter.

This submission contains such an appeal along with sufficient information and supporting documentation to
permit the pleading of our cause.

This request is not made in the interests of any one section of the Australian community.

The submitted document represents, in a limited way, the collective efforts of many individuals and reflects the
collective pain of a nation.

Thus this introductory letter deserves to carry either 19 million signatures or none at all.

But such is protocol that it must be signed. And Peter Batten, being honoured by his fellow researchers, humbly

PO Box 9112
Seaford Delivery Centre
Seaford VIC 3198

Tel (03) 8796 3861
(03) 8796 3862
Fax (03) 8796 3322

A Submission in Two Volumes
by the Sovereign People of Australia

AUSTRALIA

The Concealed colony!

Volume 1 of 2 Application and Request

Annexures 1 to 17

The continuing use of BRITISH LAW

Within the SOVEREIGN TERRITORY

of the INDEPENDENT NATION AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIA: The Concealed colony!

A Submission by the Sovereign People of Australia

This submission is copyright. Apart from any fair dealings for the purposes of private study,
research, criticism or review, no part may be reproduced without first seeking permission
from the Institute of Constitutional Education and Research.

However, the General Secretariat of, and Diplomatic Missions to, the United Nations may
freely reproduce the content of this document either, in part, or in full.

The information in this document belongs to the Australian people,
but copyright (c) 1999 belongs to the
(C) Institute of Constitutional Education and Research
PO Box 9112 Seaford Mail Delivery Centre
SEAFORD VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 3198
Telephone (03) 8796 3861
(03) 8796 3862

Contents Volume 1

Forward

Application and request

Definition of key words 1

General Statement 3

The Authors of and Authority Submitting this Report 6

This Report Constitutes a Complaint 7

Political Chronology of Australia 8

Australian Constitution is British Law 13

Australian Constitution Remains British Law 17

Australia an Independent Sovereign Nation 19

The Constitution: ‘Official’ Attitudes 27

The Concealed Colony 32

The Executive Dictatorship 37

The Final Solution! Australia Acts 1986 43

The Colonial States of Australia 45

Political Process Corrupted 49

British Statute and Unenacted Law 51

Australians Victimised and Executed 57

Bridging the Legal Void 61

The International Arena 68

Right to Sovereignty Denied 70

Request in Conclusion 72

List of Annexures - Volume 1 Annexures 1 to 17
Volume 1

1. The Australian Constitution

2. The Act of Settlement 1701

3. Oath of allegiance required of Members of Parliament and Senators

4. High Court Judgement Sue v Hill 23rd June 1999 - an extract

5. Documents relating to application to International Court of Justice

6. United Nations letter relating to Australia’s sovereign nation status

7. UN documents: Charter, an extract: Resolutions 2131 and 2625

8. Extract, Hansard Australian Parliament 30th Sept. 1921

9. Letter to Lord Chancellor and response

10. Letter from Australian Attorney-General

11. Extract Hansard, Senate 1st Oct. 1919: 1919 Peace Treaty Documents

12. Extract Hansard Australian Parliament 30th Sept. 1921

13. Treaty of Peace Act (Germany)

14. Full Powers Documents associated with establishment of the UN

15. Charter of the United Nations Act 1945

16. Letters from: Attorney-General and Aust. Govt. Solicitor.

17. United Nations Resolutions 2131 of 1965 and 2625 of 1970

Volume 2

18. Covenant of the League of Nations.

19. Docs, relating to failure to register reciprocal legislation with UN

20. Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973

21. Letters Patent: Commission of Appointment re. Governor-General

22. Australia Act (Commonwealth) 1986

23. Letters Patent: State Governors. Identification of signature OULTON

24. Commission of Appointment: Governor of South Australia.

25. An illustration of bureaucracy out of control

26. Supreme Court - Aust. Capital Territory Judgement

27. Evidence: Rulings: Findings; Judgements: 2 Cases State Court system

28. High Court of Australia Judgement December 1998

29. Writ of Certiorari

30. Full Bench, High Court of Australia Judgement 23 June 1999: an extract

31. Oath sworn by Australian Parliamentarians and Senators

32. High Court of Australia Judgement 24th June 1999

33. Correspondence involving Federal Attorney-General

34. Notice of Motion filed with High Court requiring a ruling

relating to disqualification of all sitting Parliamentarians and Senators.

35. Notice of intention to apply for an International Criminal Tribunal.

Forward

This submission establishes that those exercising the power to
govern over the sovereign people of Australia do so without the
authority of those same people. Instead they govern through the
application of a current Act of domestic law of the Parliament of the
United Kingdom, a power foreign to Australia. This submission also
establishes that those individuals exercising this power to govern
have all individually sworn and signed an oath of allegiance to a
Monarch in the sovereignty of that same foreign power, the United
Kingdom.

The authors of this submission, being informed and concerned
Australians, believed it reasonable to expect that politicians and
members of the Judiciary, after having been confronted with the facts
of history and the demands of international law, would have declared
it both necessary and urgent, to create and install a valid instrument
to bridge the eighty year legal void resulting from the 1919 change in
sovereignty over Australia.

However, because of the outcomes of direct approaches to all high
offices, including the entire court system, within Australia, it has
become abundantly clear that that which would cause the Australian
Government to become a legitimate member of the World
Community of Governments is unattainable through civil action
within Australia.

When it became clear that the necessary adjustments were "..not
matters of municipal law but the law of nations and were not
cognisable in (a) court(s) exercising jurisdiction under that
sovereignty which is sought to be challenged. ” an application was
made to the International Court of Justice. Despite the convincing
argument presented, the sovereign Australian people submitting the
application were not granted standing by that court.

Having absolutely exhausted all other possible avenues of
rectification it is now apparent that the only non violent avenue
remaining open to the citizenry of Australia lies with an appeal to the
international community who, being co-signatories to the Charter of
the United Nations, guarantee the Commonwealth of Australia,
under Article 2. Paragraphs. 1 and 4, as well as various resolutions,
the right to enjoy sovereignty over their affairs. That is, the right to
self determination, which is the most fundamental of the principles
of the United Nations.

Application and Request

We, the Sovereign People of Australia, with due respect and humility, approach and
present this submission to individual Member States of the United Nations.

This submission demonstrates that the federated peoples of Australia, which constitute
the legal entity, the Commonwealth of Australia, is an independent sovereign nation.

This submission demonstrates that the six Australian State Governments as well as the
Federal Government of Australia remain extensions of the United Kingdom
Government.

This submission demonstrates that those exerting power through these governmental
structures, as well as those individuals nominated to act on their behalf, are clearly
definable as agents of a power foreign to the Commonwealth of Australia.

This submission demonstrates that individuals within Australia, in concert with the
Government of the United Kingdom, have repeatedly acted to conceal the political and
legal truth that the sovereign people constituting the Commonwealth of Australia have
for almost eighty years been denied the right to self determination.

And finally the content of the correspondence presented in the final annexure
(ANNEXURE 35) to this submission clearly and decisively demonstrates that those
assuming the role of the Australian Government, even in the face of the most extreme
action which the sovereign people may take, refuse to take responsibility by responding
in person.

Aware and informed citizens recognise that the long standing situation has now
degenerated to a stage where a breakdown in law and order, with associated
violence, is entirely predictable and that urgent corrective action is called for.

Having absolutely exhausted all possible domestic avenues of rectification it is now
apparent that the only non violent action remaining open to the citizenry of
Australia lies with this appeal to individual members of the international
community who, being co-signatories to the Charter of the United Nations,
guarantee the Commonwealth of Australia, under Articles 2, 4, 6,102 and 103, as
well as various resolutions, the right to self determination .

Therefore, a request is made, to all Member States to individually and collectively
present and plead our cause before the General Assembly of the United Nations.
We ask, through those same Member States, for the General Assembly:-

1. to establish, within the territory of Australia, an International Tribunal to
investigate, with the view to the confirmation of, the allegations contained in this
submission and as a result have all Australian governments at all levels declared,
under international law, invalid..

2. to establish within the territory of Australia an International Criminal
Tribunal, to prosecute individuals named in the annexures of this report and any
other individuals who have been seen to be aiding and abetting the continuing
breach of international law through the application of United Kingdom law within
the territory of the sovereign nation State, the Commonwealth of Australia.

3. to implement such other procedures as are seen as necessary to uphold the
Charter of the United Nations.

4. to initiate and maintain procedures necessary to ensure the security of people
residing, both individually and collectively, in the territory of the Commonwealth
of Australia up to and until the successful implementation of a Constitution agreed
to by way of a plebiscite conducted amongst all mature Australian citizens.

5. to declare Australia’s representative at the United Nations to be persona non
grata until such time as a representative is nominated by a Government which
validly represents the sovereign and federated people of Australia, that is, the
Commonwealth of Australia.

'k'k'k'k'k'k'k’k'k'k'k'k'k’k-k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k’k

1

AUSTRALIA: The Concealed colony!

A REPORT on the continuance of the application of British law within
the territory of the independent sovereign nation Australia.

DEFINITION OF KEY WORDS

The Act: Refers to a current Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland entitled - An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia.
Royal assent granted on 9th July 1900. (63 and 64 Victoria, Chapter 12)

ANNEXURE1

The Constitution: Is the ninth clause of the Act and deals with the governing
organisation of the Commonwealth. Section 128 of the Constitution permits the making
of limited changes to the Constitution. The first eight clauses of the Act are conditional
on the ninth, the Constitution. The Parliament of the United Kingdom alone has the
power to change the first eight clauses.

Commonwealth of Australia : Refers to that community of individuals which is the
ongoing political entity and the political partnership which has the right to hold
supremacy over its affairs.

“This definition, it will be observed, is a vague and technical one; the dominant words
being ‘as established under this Act’ For the true nature and primary meaning of the
expression, the student is required to examine the first six clauses of the Act, which deal
with the establishment of the new community. The Commonwealth is not in any way
defined or explained by the constitution itself; (The 9th clause of The Act) that deals only
with the governing organisation of the Commonwealth.

The first observation to be made is that the Commonwealth should not be
confounded with the Constitution of the Government. The Commonwealth, as a political
entity and a political partnership, is outside of and supreme over the Constitution; it is
outside of and supreme over the Government provided by that Constitution. The
Government of the Commonwealth, consisting of two sets of legislative, executive and
judicial departments, central and provincial, does not constitute the community. ” (From
‘The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth. ’ Quick and Garran (Both
instrumental in preparing the draft Constitution submitted to the UK Colonial Secretary)
1901 Edition reprinted by Legal Books Sydney 1995. page 366)

Nation : The community of Australian people which has achieved the right to express
sovereignty over its own affairs and destiny.

2

State : Two separate and distinctive meanings will be applied to this word.

1) A community of people occupying a designated territory who have come together in a
political union that they may legitimately establish an executive authority to control all
matters, including the power to enter into agreements and treaties with other such
communities.

2) A colony of the United Kingdom which under clause 6 of ‘The Act’ became entitled
“A State” and became a part of the Commonwealth.

Colony : A community and a territory, which is governed by an authority whose ultimate
source of power is traceable to a sovereignty not possessed by that community.

Subject: An individual member of a colony

Citizen : An individual member of a state as defined under 1) above. (Unless otherwise
defined)

Australia : An abbreviated description of the community of people comprising the
sovereign independent nation State of the Commonwealth of Australia and the designated
territory, which under international law, that community controls. (Unless otherwise
defined)

Letters Patent: The means by which a sovereign appoints a Vice-Regal representative, a
Governor General or Governor capable of giving Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament and
appointing officers of the Crown ( ministers, judges, magistrates, police officers and
members of the armed forces etc..) Under UK. law the Queen of the United Kingdom
can only issue Letters Patent to one of her subjects, a British citizen. And the
instructions contained in those Letters Patent may only be applied to British citizens
resident in the United Kingdom or its Territories ~ Letters Patent cannot be issued to
or applied to foreigners.

3

GENERAL STATEMENT

There exists a situation in which international law is being offended through the
continuing use of what are properly United Kingdom laws within the sovereign
independent nation of the Commonwealth of Australia.

On a number of occasions this unsatisfactory situation has given rise to serious problems.

In an attempt to make what is a fundamentally invalid situation workable the government
of one, or on some occasions both, countries have taken action through the enactment of
subsidiary legislation.

No action has been taken to rectify the underlying defect.

Ihe situation has deteriorated to a level where it has become necessary for Australian
citizens to initiate direct action.

The Nature of the problem

The problem lies in the fact that as a legal entity the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’
owed its existence to an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, namely, “An Act

to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia” (UK) 1900. ANNEXURE 1

On the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia ratifying the signing of the Treaty
of Versailles on October 1 1919 the Commonwealth of Australia achieved sovereign
independent nation status thus separating itself from the Act of British law, (An Act to
Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia .), the instrument that created it. This new
status immediately gained international recognition.

Later both the United Kingdom and Australia became foundation members of the League
of Nations and the International Labour Organisation. In so doing both Australia and the
United Kingdom accepted the authority of international law.

Amongst other things international law dictates that, in the absence of an international
arrangement or a reciprocal treaty, duly registered with, and advertised by, the League of
Nations, and later, the United Nations, between Member States, the law of one Member
State may not be used within the territory of the other Member State.

No such international arrangement or treaty between the United Kingdom and Australia
was so created.

Thus, under international law, when Australia achieved independence the United
Kingdom Act which created the legal entity, the ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ and
provided the Constitution under which its governing organisation was created became, in
the legal sense, redundant.

4

Change of Sovereignty . As a consequence valid sovereignty over the Commonwealth of
Australia moved from the Queen (which actually means the Parliament because, under
the terms of the ‘Act of Settlement 1701 ' the Queen is appointed by, and therefore
subordinate to the Parliament) of the United Kingdom to the Australian people. That is to
the Commonwealth of Australia. ANNEXURE 2

A change in sovereignty necessarily results in a break in legal continuity.

The politicians of the day failed to create the legal instrument necessary to bridge the
legal void created through this change in sovereignty.

As a result the internationally recognised sovereign nation, the Commonwealth of
Australia has continued to be Governed as if, in fact, no change had occurred.

The two sets (one State (Provincial) one Federal) of legislative, executive and judicial
structures put in place because of the Constitution contained in the Act and controlled
under the eight conditional clauses of that Act of British law, remain, invalidly, in place.

The States, existing only as administrative structures and being a creation of the
Constitution Act ceased, (along with their governments), in the legal sense, to exist when,
on gaining independence, that Constitution Act became redundant.

The federation of States along with the federal Government, being products of that
redundant Act of British law also, in the legal sense, ceased to exist

Effects resulting from a failure to create a legal bridge to accommodate the change
in sovereignty

When sovereignty was achieved by the Australian People the Act was not repealed and
replaced by a system of government belonging to the Australian people. As a
consequence they have continued to be governed under exactly the same colonial law to
which they were subjugated prior to independence. It is clear that over time direct day to
day British influence has diminished but the powers of subjugation inherent in the Act
have remained unaltered and have been assumed by Australian Governments, both
Federal and State.

Australian governments invalid

Thus from the time that the Commonwealth of Australia became a sovereign nation the
individuals assuming power in both the State (Provincial) and Federal governments and
within the judiciaries and bureaucracies have done so without being granted the necessary
legitimate power, that is, the necessary authority, by the people.

Instead they have continued to accept their appointment to positions of power, in accord
with the terms, conditions and restrictions defined in the Act, from the Queen of the
United Kingdom, that is, the Government of the United Kingdom.

5

Every Australian Parliamentary representatives forced to commit act of treason?

Before they may assume their seat in the Australian Parliament ever Member and Senator
must swear an oath or affirmation to the Monarch in the sovereignty of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. “There is no provision for any deviation from this
constitutional requirement . No Member may take part in proceedings of the House until
sworn in. ” (Parliament Research Office, 10th June 1999) ANNEXURE 3

The oath and Affirmation appear as the Schedule to clause nine of the Act, the
Constitution, but because it lies outside the Constitution it may not be altered under the
provisions of section 128 of the Constitution. The only authority which may, perhaps,
have the power to alter this condition is, the owners of the Act, the Parliament of the
United Kingdom. However, there exists an argument that since the Act is actually legally
redundant no authority may initiate any alteration whatsoever.

Attention was drawn to his unsatisfactory state of affairs when, on the 23rd June 1999,
the Full Bench of the High Court of Australia ruled that the United Kingdom was a
power foreign to Australia. This resulted in that Court ruling that Heather Hill, a
candidate elected to the Senate, could not occupy a seat because she maintained an
allegiance to that foreign power, the United Kingdom.
ANNEXURE 4 She had migrated to Australia as an 11 year old child. She had been
granted Australian citizenship but had failed to renounce her British citizenship. There is
an irony associated with this. Heather Hill’s replacement is, by law (S42 of the
Constitution), be required to, swear and subscribe allegiance to that very same
sovereignty, the United Kingdom!

Situations such as this arise, not only because the nation is attempting to function under
the invalid Constitution contained in the Act but also, because at times both the British
and Australian governments have attempted to conceal problems through the initiation
and invalid implementation of legislation subordinate to, or in addition to, the original
Act. Such actions have effectively compounded the invalidity of the governmental
structure and the laws being effected in Australia. Even the casual student will realise that
the situation has now passed being ridiculous and has become ludicrous.

Australian residents lose civil rights

Colonial law, by definition, is a law of subjugation. The Act to Constitute the
Commonwealth of Australia, being a colonial Act, does not contain any elements of
sovereignty or of civil rights. Originally this did not present any undue problems since
Australians enjoyed all the privileges of British Citizenship, including entitlement to
protection of their civil rights under the full gambit of British law. This state of affairs
tended to remain well after the definable date of Australia’s independence. But in 1971/2
the situation altered dramatically when the United Kingdom, by way of its ‘Immigration
and Asylum Act’, legislated to declare Australian citizens to be neither British citizens,
British subjects, nor British residents and to have no entitlements under British law.
However, the Act, devoid of civil rights remained in place with the consequent result that
at the level of governmental administration the bureaucracy has become even further
inclined to summarily impose on and unduly regulate the actions of the individual

6

Australian residents. In an endeavour to maintain a facade of legitimacy those controlling
the politico/legal system have, when under challenge, repeatedly resorted to inconsistency
and irregularity in the application of justice.

By challenging and testing the system of government through the fullest possible use of
the legal system which currently exists in Australia, it has become clear that those
individuals who have assumed the responsibilities of high office, including the judiciary,
will not initiate the actions necessary to ensure that the Australian people wrest from the
United Kingdom, complete and rightful sovereignty over their nation.

Many examples exist which illustrate that Australian courts are prepared to compromise
truth and justice so that ‘current practice’ through precedent may be maintained.

Sovereign People of Australian submit application to International Court of Justice

Having demonstrated that because the Australian government does not validly represent
the sovereign people of Australia then representation in matters of State has therefore
reverted directly to the people, representatives in the name of the Sovereign People of
Australia, acting as The State, submitted an Application and Petition to the International
Court of Justice at The Hague.

This Application, dated 9th June 1999, was submitted under Article 36 of the Statute as,
‘A Matter Between THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA and THE
PARLIAMENT AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT
BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND.’ ANNEXURE 5

As this submission was in its final stages of assembly news arrived that, despite the
evidence presented establishing that the body masquerading as the Australian
Government did not meet the requirements necessary to represent the sovereign people of
Australia, that is, the Commonwealth of Australia, the submitters of this matter were not
granted standing by the ICJ.

•k-k-k-k’k-k-k^krk^-Jt'k'k'k'k-k-k-k-k'k

THE AUTHORS of, and THE AUTHORITY SUBMITTING THIS REPORT

The Commonwealth of Australia is an independent sovereign Nation State and as such is
a Member State of the United Nations. As such the United Kingdom cannot be
Australia’s colonial master. These facts cannot be questioned. ANNEXURE 6

However those claiming to represent the State, and hence, possess the power of
government of and over the Australian people rely, for that power, on a current Act of
domestic law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (An Act to
Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia) which, under international law, (Charter of
the United Nations Article 2, paras, 1 & 4, and resolutions 2131 (XX) 1965, and 2625
(XXV) 1970, cannot be validly applied in a sovereign independent Australia.

ANNEXURE 7

7

Additionally those same individuals have each sworn and subscribed an oath of
allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II in the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland. ANNEXURE 3

The conclusion which must therefore be reached is that, under the UN Charter and
various Resolutions, valid and legal government does not exist in Australia.

Under such circumstances international law rules that the expression of government and
representation of the State reverts directly to the citizenry, the sovereign people.

Accordingly this report has been prepared and presented bv Australian citizens who
rightfully represent the sovereign Nation State of the Commonwealth of Australia.

******************

THIS REPORT CONSTITUTES A COMPLAINT

That:- The United Kingdom Government is breaching international law.

1) Since no legal instrument exists or has existed, under the doctrine known as the law of
State succession, to enable the continued unmodified application of British colonial law
within the internationally recognised borders of the sovereign Nation State of the
Commonwealth of Australia, the Government of the United Kingdom, in consenting to,
and assisting the invalid Government of Australia to retain power through the use of
unmodified British colonial law and to continue to create what are properly United
Kingdom laws for application in a non British sovereignty over non British subjects, is
acting in breach of international law.

and that.

The people of the Commonwealth of Australia are being victimised.

2) When the invalid and flawed British colonial law being effected on the people of
Australia is challenged in the courts created under that same invalid and flawed law, those
invalidity entrusted with the power to adjudicate matters contested between individuals
and the Government prostrate themselves before the Executive of the Government and
through abuse of the very rules, procedures and laws they have undertaken to uphold,
deny individuals their right to such natural justice as may be contained within these same
laws.

Events have amply demonstrated that these Magistrates and Judges have moved from
merely acting as agents for a foreign power who enforce the laws of that power, to
behaving as free self-serving individuals who through the abuse of those very same laws
vainly attempt to deflect the exposure of the crimes that they, and the govemment/s that
appointed them, have committed against the people of Australia.

8

POLITICAL CHRONOLOGY OF AUSTRALIA
The historical development of government is as follows,

1. Stage One, 1788 to 1823. Government by absolute decree of the Governor of the
Colony.

2. Stage 2 1823 -1842 Governor of Colony assisted by nominated legislature with
advisory powers only.

3. Stage 3. 1842-1856 two thirds of legislature elected by freeholders (ie. landowners)
plus a few others. Colonial constitutions introduced.

All three eastern colonies attained colonial self government by legislature in 1856 with
constitutions for New South Wales, Victoria, and Tasmania created by the Imperial
Parliament. South Australia's colonial constitution was passed in South Australia under
direction from the British Government. Victoria was divided from New South Wales in
1851 to form a separate colony. Queensland was separated from New South Wales in
1859

4. In the late 1850’s the British Government attempted to create a federation. The attempt
foundered because of distrust between the colonies.

5. During the 1890’s the governments of the six self governing colonies finally agreed to
a formula under which federation might occur. A draft Constitution and a proposition to
federate after failing to gain approval at a referendum held in 1898 was approved when
presented again in 1899. However, the granting of a limited franchise and other factors
resulted in only some 7% of the people registering an expressed desire.

6. Draft Constitution transmitted to London, amended by the Colonial Office and enacted
by the Imperial Parliament on the 9th July 1900 as ‘An Act to Constitute the
Commonwealth of Australia’. Section 1 of the Act allows a short title to be used “The
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act” without altering the colonial nature of the
legislation. The Act was proclaimed on January 1st 1901.

7. "The Commonwealth of Australia, as a colony of the UK - the word Dominion
did not come into use until the passing of a resolution at the 1911 Imperial Conference -
had limited internal self government in 1901." I.M. Cumpston, Emeritus Reader in
Commonwealth History, University of London (- History of Australian Foreign Policy
1901-1991).

8. January 22nd 1901, death of Queen Victoria. Under Bill of Rights 1689 and other
British law all writs of the Sovereign, including Letters Patent, die with the sovereign.
Queen Victoria died on January 22nd 1901. Thus new Letters Patent were required for
continuation of the role of Governor General of Australia. Research has revealed that no
such document was issued by the new Monarch, the King.

9

9 1914. King George V declares war on Germany on behalf of Great Britain and its
colonies including Australia.

10. October 1, 1918. Turkish troops in Damascus defeated by Anzac forces refuse to
surrender to colonial forces. Formal surrender had to wait until British officers arrived
several weeks later.

11. The British Dominion of the Commonwealth of Australia, a colony of the United
Kingdom, as a member of the British Empire contingent, joins the peace conference at
Versailles on 13 January 1919 with Prime Minister William Hughes and his deputy Sir
Joseph Cook as its representatives.

12. Supported by the 1917 Imperial War Conference resolution (Article IX) and argument
by the President of the United States, Australia, through William Morris Hughes and Sir
Joseph Cook, gained independent representation and signed the Peace Treaty of
Versailles on 28 June 1919. "Australia is now a nation by virtue of God and the British
Empire " said Hughes after signing the treaty.

13. Prime Minister Hughes, by way of a motion that the Parliament ratify the Treaty of
Versailles, addressed Federal Parliament on 10 September 1919 " Australia has now
entered into a family of nations on a footing of equality. THE PARLIAMENT
COMPLETED THIS PROCESS OF RATIFICATION ON 1ST OCTOBER 1919.
THUS THE PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING AUSTRALIA’S INDEPENDENCE
WAS COMPLETED.

14. The actions of Hughes and Cook were written into Australian law through the
unanimously approved Treaty of Peace Act of 28th October 1919.

15. On 10 January 1920 the League of Nations becomes part of international law with
Australia as one of the 29 original Member States. Thus Australia’s sovereign nation
status and political independence was, guaranteed in international law under Article X of
the League's Covenant..

The British Dominion, the colony of the Commonwealth of Australia, had ceased to
exist in law. The right to self determination of the Nation State, the Commonwealth
of Australia had been guaranteed by all League of Nations Covenant signatory
Member States.

16. Sir Geoffrey Butler KBE, MA and Fellow, Librarian and Lecturer in International
Law and Diplomacy of Corpus Christi College, CAMBRIDGE, author of "A Handbook
to the League of Nations” used as a reference to the League by all nations at that time,
pronounced in reference to Article I of the Covenant of the League of Nations, "It is
arguable that this article is the Covenant's most significant single measure. By it the
British Dominions, namely, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Canada, have
their independent nationhood established for the first time. There may be friction over
small matters in giving effect to this internationally acknowledged fact, but the

10

Dominions will always look to the League of Nations Covenant as their Declaration of
Independence. ”

17. The League of Nations confirmed Australia's mandated territories of Nauru and
German New Guinea on 17 December 1920. The mandates are confirmed in the name of
the nation of Australia as a Member State of the League.

18. 1921 Imperial Conference. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom makes
declaration:- “ In recognition of their services and achievements in the war the British
Dominions have now been accepted fully into the comity of nations of the whole world.
They are signatories to the Treaty of Versailles and of all other Treaties of Peace; they
are members of the Assembly of the League of Nations, and their representatives have
already attended meetings of the League; in other words, they have achieved full nation
status. and they now stand beside the United Kingdom as equal partners in the dignities
and responsibilities of the British Commonwealth. If there are any means by which that
status can be rendered even more clear to their own communities and to the world at
large, we shall be glad to have them put forward at this Conference ."

19. Official seal set on new relationship between British Commonwealth Nations. “In

these words, the Prime Minister of Britain, the President of the Conference, set out in
clear unambiguous language the concept of a partnership of free nations , all equal in
dignity and responsibility , to which the Conference subsequently and officially set its
seal. ” (W.M. Hughes Australian House of Representatives Hansard 30th Sept 1921, p,
1131) ANNEXURE 8

20. Sir Joseph Cook became the first Australian High Commissioner to be appointed as
‘Ambassador’ to the United Kingdom. This occurred on 11 November 1921. The United
Kingdom further recognised the sovereignty of Australia through the acceptance of his
credentials. During the ceremony King George V welcomed “ the representative of our
ex-colony , the newly independent nation of Australia."

21. G.F.Pearce represented Australia at the Washington conference from 12 November
1921 to 6 February 1922 resulting in the signing of the Treaties of Washington, which
were written into Australian law by way of the Treaties of Washington Act 1922 on 30th
August 1922.

22. 1923 Imperial Conference confirmed that individual Member Nations of the
Commonwealth of Nations had absolute power to make international treaties.

23. 1924 compulsory voting in Commonwealth elections introduced by way of a private
Members Bill.

24. 1926 Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of the 1926 Imperial Conference issued a
declaration on the absolute equality of the Dominions with the United Kingdom. This
predated Statute of Westminster by 5 years.

II

25. On 26th June 1945 Australia became a foundation Member State of the United
Nations. The Charter of the United Nations written into Australian law via the ‘Charter of
the United Nations Act 1945’, on the 14th September 1945. Australia's sovereign nation
status guaranteed by the Charter of the United Nations. (Article 2 paragraphs 1 and 4 plus
various resolutions).

26. In the Namibia Case of 1971 (ref 1CJ1971,16.) the International Court of Justice
ruled that all Member States of the United Nations have accepted a legal obligation under
Articles 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter to recognise and implement all the
human rights obligations in the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
and under other UN instruments.

27. 1973 Royal Styles and Titles Act passed by Commonwealth Parliament - reserved for
signature by the Queen. This Act removes the status of Queen of the United Kingdom in
Australia and substitutes the title "Queen of Australia." As the 1900 Constitution only
recognises the Queen of the United Kingdom (Section 2 of the Constitution Act) this
effectively removed the Queen from executive power in Australia. The 1973 Act has no
power to alter the Constitution as no referendum was held.

28. 1975 On dismissal of Whitlam government by Governor-General Kerr, Speaker
Scholes sought direction from the Queen. The reply confirms she no longer has power in
Australia.

29. 1984 New Letters Patent issued for appointment of Governor General by the Queen of
Australia. Under the Constitution which remains United Kingdom law the representative
of the "Queen of Australia" has no executive power or legal position since the Queen of
Australia has no legal position in United Kingdom law. And the Constitution only
recognises the Monarch existing in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

30. 1986 Australia Act passed by Commonwealth Parliament. This Act claims to repeal
Acts of a foreign country's parliament, the United Kingdom, in contravention of
international law, and Articles 2.(1) and 2.(4) of the United Nations Charter.

The Act passed by the United Kingdom Parliament claims to make laws for application in
Australia. This is also in contravention of international law - Articles 2.(1) and 2.(4) of
the UN Charter.

31. On 14th February 1986 Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom issued separate sets
of Letters Patent to Constitute the Office of Governor in the separate States. They were
signed by ‘Oulton’ Permanent Secretary in the Lord Chancellor’s Office of the UK
Government. Each of these sets of instructions were designated to come into
operation at the same time as the Australia Acts.

32. In 1997 The British Government stated and has provided documentation with regard
to the legislative powers of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

12

“No act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or act that looks to the Parliament of
the United Kingdom for its authority is valid in Australia or its territories in accordance
with the laws of the United Kingdom, International Law and the Charter of the United
Nations ."

33. When asked specifically about the validity of the following items, the British
Government referred to their previous reply as stated above.

(1) The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK

(2) The Westminster Act 1931 UK

(3) All Australian "State" constitutions relating to UK legislation

(4) The Australia Bill 1986 UK

(5) Letters of Patent from a British Monarch containing instructions to individuals and
purporting to authorise an action to be taken by a representative of the Monarch in a
Member State of the United Nations other than the United Kingdom.

34. February, 1998 International Law Commission of the United Nations issues the
following ruling:

"No laws of a Member State of the United Nations are valid within the sovereign territory
of another Member State unless via a reciprocal treaty agreed between the two member
states. The treaty may not infringe the sovereignty of either Member State."

*1* »1* »!» *1* sly sly sly sly J. »*s sly sly sly sly sly sly sly sly sly sly sly

*v* *T* *T* *T" *i* *T* •T* •r 'T' *1* v V T T *1* T # T > 'r v *1* v

13

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION IS BRITISH LAW

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was, is, and remains an Act of the
Imperial Parliament of the United Kingdom

The creation of the Australian Constitution and Federation

From about 1850 the United Kingdom had desired for its six Australian colonies, along
with their New Zealand colony, to federate. It was considered that such an arrangement
would expedite matters of administration, trade and defence.

During the 1890’s the governments of the six self governing British colonies occupying
the land mass known as Australia finally agreed to a formula under which they were
prepared to federate.

After a series of Constitution Convention debates a draft constitution and a proposition to
federate was put, by referendum, to the people of the six colonies. The draft of the
Constitution Bill was then submitted to the British Colonial Secretary, Joseph
Chamberlain.

There exists a perpetuating myth that the Commonwealth Constitution is the "expression
of the will of the people", voted for, in a referendum by a majority of the Australian
people.

In fact this assertion will not stand examination. Only a small percentage of Australian’s
actually cast a vote in favour of the draft Constitution (Approximately 10%). The vast
majority of the population, ie. most aboriginals, most women and many men were denied
a franchise and thus not even permitted to vote in the referendum. Franchise was property
based, and individuals were permitted multiple votes, some as many as six. However, it is
argued that “..what matters is less the statistics and more the mechanism. The making of
the Constitution was neither representative nor inclusive of the Australian people
generally. It was drafted by a small, privileged, section of society. Whole sections of the
community were excluded from the Conventions and from voting for the draft
Constitution. ” (‘Human Rights Under the Constitution’ George Williams, 1999, Oxford,
ISBN 0 19 551059 3, p. 30)

The draft Constitution Bill was duly submitted to Colonial Secretary Chamberlain.
History records that the Law Officers of the Crown in England scrutinised the Convention
Debates as thoroughly as they did the Australian Constitution Bill and were so alarmed by
certain sections of the Bill that they persuaded Chamberlain to insert additional wording
to reassert the paramount authority of imperial legislation in Australia.

The Bill was further amended during its passage through the Parliament. In the final
outcome, the people of Australia have never voted for or agreed to the final political and
legal system under which they are governed. At most they expressed a limited will to
federate.

14

Early influence of British commercial and political interests

It is reported that years later it was revealed that Colonial Secretary Chamberlain was
under such enormous pressure from banking, insurance and shipping companies based in
the City of London, to preserve their access to Privy Council appeals that he advanced the
most controversial of his several amendments while at the same time ‘trading off and
amending the wording of others. These manoeuvres served to defeat the ‘constitution
framers’ intention that Australia have the power to enter into international treaties and of
prohibiting all appeals from the proposed High Court of Australia to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council.

It is clear that the British law makers along with commercial interests were not about
relinquishing Britain’s control over Australia. In point of fact Australian delegates finally
found it expedient to go to great lengths to assure these people that the Australian
‘constitution framers’ had not the slightest intention of limiting the United Kingdom
Parliament’s paramountcy.

The British law makers through conditional Clause 8 of the Act, “ After the passing of
this Act the Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895, shall not apply to any colony which
becomes a State of the Commonwealth; but the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a
self-governing colony for the purposes of that Act . ” effectively affirmed the assertions
of the Australian Constitution-makers while at the same time putting to rest any doubts
held by British interests.

The Bill that was finally enacted into law by the United Kingdom Parliament was
substantially different to that which was drafted in Australia. The most that can be said
for the 1898 referendum is that it was a referendum for the federation of six colonies to
form a single colony, voted on by an unrepresentative minority of British Citizens
resident in those six Australia colonies.

The Commonwealth of Australia was to be a British colony.

The people of Australia were to remain subjects of the United Kingdom.

The People United : The Commonwealth of Australia created.

On the 9th July 1900, as the result of the enacting of “An Act to constitute the
Commonwealth of Australia”, by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the people of
New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania became united
in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Provision was made for the people of Western Australia to agree, at a later date, to also
become united with the other named peoples.

This agreement occurred prior to the date of proclamation which was January 1st 1901.
This unification of the people of the six colonies occurred under clause 3 of the Act

15

"It shall be lawful for the Queen , with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by
proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year
after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales , Victoria , South Australia,
Queensland, and Tasmania, and also . if her Majesty is satisfied that the people of
Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a
Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the
Queen may at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the
Commonwealth. ”

Covering clause 2 of the Act, "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall
extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United
Kingdom along with Covering clause 8, "After the passing of this Act the Colonial
Boundaries Act, 1895, shall not apply to any colony which became a State of the
Commonwealth; but the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony for
the purposes of the Act, firmly ended the desires of those who would have Australia
become an independent nation.

The following quotations express the clear understanding of the founding fathers of the
constitution that they had not sought or been granted independence.

a. Alfred Deakin: "There is no pretence of claiming the power of peace or war, or
exercising power outside our territories".

b. Samuel Griffith: "We do not take anything away from the Parliament of Great
Britain".

c. John Forrest: "If we were founding an independent nation it might be a very
appropriate term. That, however, is not the case". John Forrest was objecting to using the
name The Commonwealth of Australia'.

d. Henry Parkes: "Federation is not independence. It is a chance for the colonies more
effectively to unite with the Mother-country informing an Empire such as has never yet
been formed ".

e. Charles Kingston: "The Federation must be consistent with allegiance to the Crown
and the power of the Imperial Parliament to legislate for the whole of the Empire if it
chose”.

f. Dr. J.Quick & R.R. Garran: Authors of "The Annotated Constitution of the Australian
Commonwealth" written in 1901. Both played major roles in the actual drafting of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. The work was reprinted by Legal Books in
1995. The quote is taken from page 367.

"Imperial Relationship:- By the preamble the Commonwealth is declared to be "Under
the Crown;" it is constitutionally a subordinate, and not an independent Sovereign
community, or state. But its population is so great, its territory so vast, the obvious scope
and intention of the scheme of union are so comprehensive, whilst its political

16

organisation is of such a superior type, that it is entitled to a designation which, whilst
not conveying the idea of complete sovereignty and independence, will serve to
distinguish it from an ordinary provincial society”.

The source of most of these quotations is a series of documents recording the proceedings
of committees in 1900 prior to the dispatch of the draft constitution to the United
Kingdom plus "The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth" published
in 1901.

Yet the myth that the Act of 1900 gave Australia independence remains wide spread and
even now continues to be espoused by some within the academic and judicial community.

" The Constitution is section 9 of an Act of the British Parliament, the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act. Australia comprised six colonies in the British Empire when
the Constitution was drafted and action by the British Parliament was necessary to give it

legal force . .Australia became an independent nation in 1901 . Since the

passage of the Australia Acts in 1986, it has been clear that Britain can no longer
legislate for Australia, even if Australia asked it to do so. However, no changes have been
made to the Commonwealth Constitution to mark these developments. ” (‘The Australian
Constitution’ ISBN O 9586908 1 2 , Professor Cheryl Saunders, Deputy Chair of
the Constitutional Foundation and Director of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional
Studies at the University of Melbourne 1997 Page 17).

"On the inauguration of the Commonwealth on 1 January 1901, British hegemony over
the Australia colonies ended and the Commonwealth of Australia emerged as an
independent sovereign nation in the community of nations. From then, the British
Parliament had no legislative authority over Australia. ” (High Court of Australia,
Murphy J, in Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty. Ltd. (1985) 159 CLR 351 at 383)

The content of this submission demonstrates that such ‘academic’ pronouncements are,
historical and legal, nonsense. The motives of those promulgating such misinformation
must be questioned. This becomes particularly pertinent when it is appreciated that some
such individuals are people of ‘standing’ and influence in the community.

The federation of the people to form the legal entity the Commonwealth of Australia
was an act which united the peoples of the six self governing colonies to form a
single self governing colony of the United Kingdom.

17

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION REMAINS BRITISH LAW

That the Australian Constitution remains a current Act of British law is in fact, confirmed
by:

1) The Lord Chancellor, who, in answer to a question, reported to have been July 1995, in
the House of Commons stated ; " The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK)
1900 is an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. The right to repeal this Act remains
the sole prerogative of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There is no means by
which under United Kingdom or international law this power can be transferred to a

foreign country or Member State of the United Nations ." Accuracy of this statement

confirmed 11th December 1997. ANNEXURE 9

2) The Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom Government has stated
in reply (dated 11 December 1997) to written questions directed to the Lord Chancellor :

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution act was enacted in the United

Kingdom . There are at present no plans to repeal the Constitution Act. .

The Government of the United Kingdom would, however , give consideration to the
repeal of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act if a request to that effect were
made by the Government of Australia. To date no such request has been made. ”

ANNEXURE 9

3) Office of the Australian Attorney-General (21 st October 1997): “. during the course

of this century Australia has become an independent nation and the character of the
Constitution as the fundamental law of Australia is now seen as deriving not from its
status as an Act of British Parliament, which no longer has any power over Australia, but
from its acceptance by the Australian people. Nevertheless, the Constitution remains part
of an Act of the British Parliament. That Act has not been repealed . ". ANNEXURE 10

Title of ‘Dominion’ did not alter colonial status

In 1911 Australia, along with Canada, New Zealand and South Africa was given the new
title of “Dominion” to distinguish them from Britain’s other smaller colonies. This action
by Britain did not alter, in any legal sense, Australia’s colonial status.

This fact was amply illustrated when King George the V, in 1914, declared war on
Germany on behalf of Great Britain and its colonies and Australia and Australians found
themselves at war.

Thousands of Australians volunteered and went off to fight in the Middle East and
Europe. But a large proportion of the population of Irish background, mindful of the
activities of British troops in Ireland, protested and refused to volunteer. An attempt by
Labor Prime Minister, William Morris Hughes, to introduce conscription via referendum
failed on two occasions - in 1916 and 1917. This precipitated a political turmoil which
tore the Australian Labor Party apart resulting in Hughes switching sides to become a non

18

Labor Prime Minister leading a pro-British government in a move which has had
profound consequences the reverberations of which are still being felt today.

Official announcement: Dominions to be granted independence

While these events were unfolding in Australia the Imperial War Conference of 1917 was
taking place in London at which the British Government announced a decision on the
basis of the contribution made to the war effort by Australia, Canada, South Africa, New
Zealand and Newfoundland to have all five colonies become independent sovereign
nations but remaining within “an Imperial Commonwealth”.

It was decided and recorded by resolution IX of this conference that “ The Imperial War
Conference are of the opinion that the readjustment of constitutional relations of the
component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with
during the War and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference to be
summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities. They deem it their duty,
howeverto place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly
preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic
affairs , should be based on a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations
of an Imperial Commonwealth.... ”.

Australia, along with the other Dominions were granted separate representation at the
Peace Conference of 1919. This not only involved the co-operation of the British
Government but also foreign powers. The Imperial War Cabinet agreed and the allied
powers accepted that the Dominions should have separate representation equivalent to
that of the non-major powers. In addition the Dominions were represented through and by
a panel system on the delegation of the British Empire which was one of the five powers
“with general interests” who could attend all sessions and committees. Thus, with the
approval of the allied powers and the world community of nations the newly emerging
nations’ concerns and interests were able to be expressed and considered at the highest
levels of mediation.

Despite the achievement of independent sovereign nation status the Australian
Constitution being part of an unrepealed Act of the United Kingdom Parliament
remains British domestic law. Both United Kingdom and international law dictate
that the right to repeal the Australian Constitution must remain solely with the
Parliament of the United Kingdom.

19

AUSTRALIA AN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATION

Australia signs Treaty of Versailles and achieves international personality and
becomes a foundation Member State of the League of Nations.

On the 28th June 1919 Australia along with the other Dominions signed the Peace Treaty
- the Treaty of Versailles - and, like them, became one of the 29 foundation members of
the League of Nations.

the request from the Dominion governments the full powers to sign were issued
by the King on the advice of the Imperial government through the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs. (Professor Zines, ‘The Growth of Nationhood and its Effect on the
Powers of the Commonwealth’, p, 27 “Commentaries on the Australian Constitution ”)

ANNEXURE 11

The ‘Full Powers’ documents presented by Prime Minister and Attorney-General,
William Morris Hughes and his Deputy and Minister for the Navy Sir Joseph Cook, was
signed by the Sovereign and sealed with the Great Seal. After the signing of the Treaty of
Versailles there ensued a series of cables from the British government to the Governor-
General urging that the resultant treaty be ratified, without delay, by the Australian
Parliament. The process of ratification was not only necessary to give effect to the
treaty but also to confirm Australia’s status as a sovereign nation which could then
act internationally. The process of ratification was completed on 1st October 1919.
(Source of information, Professor O’Brien, Head of the Department of International law,
Stanford University. Information confirmed via documents extracted from Parliamentary
debates Sept/Oct 1919 and Commonwealth Parliamentary Papers 1920-21)

ANNEXURE 11

It is clear that the persistent agitations of the Dominions resulted in their colonial
master. Great Britain choosing to use the Treaty of Versailles as the instrument
through which the Dominions were to be given full international personality.

After signing the Treaty William Morris Hughes said, " Australia is now a nation by
virtue of God and The British Empire. ”

That this was so was confirmed through the official statement made by Lord Milner, at
the time Secretary of War in the United Kingdom Government:- “ The Peace Treaty
recently made in Paris was signed on behalf of the British Empire by Ministers of the
self-governing Dominions as well as by the British Ministers. They were all equal
plenipotentiaries of His Majesty the King, who was the ‘High Contracting Party’ for the
whole Empire. This procedure illustrates the new constitution of the Empire, which has
been gradually growing up for many years past. The United Kingdom and the Dominions
are partner nations not yet indeed of equal power, but for good and all of equal status. ”

In 1919 General Smuts, during the debate in the South African Parliament on the
ratification of the Peace Treaty, set out the new status of the Dominions in language no
less clear and precise: “The Union Parliament stands on exactly the same basis as the

20

British House of Commons, which has no legislative power over the Union... Where in the
past British Ministers could have acted for the Union (in respect of foreign affairs), in
future Ministers of the Union will act for the Union. The change is a far reaching one
which will alter the whole basis of the British Empire... We have received a position of
absolute equality and freedom not only among other States of the Empire, but among the
other Nations of the World. ”

While Sir Robert Borden, in his speech to the Canadian Parliament in 1919, set out the
position of the Dominion representatives in the Imperial Council Chamber in terms
equally clear and comprehensive:- " We meet here on terms of equality under the
presidency of the First Minister of the United Kingdom... Ministers from six nations
around the council-board, all of them responsible to their respective Parliaments and to
the people of the countries they represent. Each nation has its voice upon questions of
common concern; each preserves unimpaired its perfect autonomy, its self-government,
and the responsibility to its own electorate. ” (These quotes taken from ‘A Splendid
Adventure by Right Hon.W.M. Hughes, formally Prime Minister of Australia, London -
Earnest Benn Limited 1929 printed in Great Britain - First Edition pp. 234, 235, 236.)

At a slightly later date Australia’s status (as well as that of Canada, New Zealand, South
Africa and Newfoundland) was totally and thoroughly confirmed when in his opening
speech to the 1921 Imperial Conference in London the British Prime Minister Lloyd
George said:- “ ( In recognition of their services and achievements in the war the
British Dominions have now been accepted fully into the comity of nations of the
whole world . They are signatories to the Treaty of Versailles and of all other Treaties
of Peace; they are members of the Assembly of the League of Nations, and their
representatives have already attended meetings of the League; in other words , they
have achieved full nation status , and they now stand beside the United Kingdom as
equal partners in the dignities and responsibilities of the British Commonwealth. If
there are any means by which that status can be rendered even more clear to their own
communities and to the world at large , we shall be glad to have them put forward at
this Conference. ’

In these words , the Prime Minister of Britain, the President of the Conference , set out
in clear unambiguous language the concept of a partnership of free nations, all equal
in disnity and responsibility , to which the Conference subsequently and officially set its
seal. ” (W.M. Hughes Australian House of Representatives Hansard 30th Sept. 1921

at p. 11631) ANNEXURE 12

Australia demonstrated the achievement of this new status by immediately proceeding to
become, as an independent sovereign State, a foundation member of the International
Labor Organisation. Australia also confirmed the achievement of independence through
the signing of Treaties of Peace with Austria, Bulgaria and Hungary, as well as the 1922
Washington Naval Treaties. Each of these Treaties were duly ratified by the Australian
Parliament, and subsequently written into Australian law via various Acts of the
Parliament. The terms of Washington Disarmament Treaty was acceded to when, on April
12th 1924, H.M.A.S. Australia was sunk with full honours off Sydney Heads.

21

The capacity of members of the Commonwealth of Nations to act in an unrestrained and
fully independent manner was further illustrated on March of 1923 when Canada entered
into the ‘Halibut Fisheries Treaty’ with the United States. Its signatories acted with
plenary powers which were issued independently of the King of the United Kingdom,
King George V. In 1925 this Treaty was formally registered with the League of Nations
under Article 18 of the Covenant.

It is also of interest to note that in 1934 the Union of South Africa expressed its
unrestrained independence by choosing to pass its own law removing the right to British
citizenship from citizens of South Africa.

Australia, in its own right becomes a colonial power

The World community of nations further confirmed their acceptance of Australia’s new
status through the granting, via the League of Nations, of mandates over Nauru and
German New Guinea on the 17th December 1920. The mandates were confirmed in the
name of the nation of Australia. Thus Australia, in its own right, became a Colonial
Power.

The sovereignty of the Australian people was again recognised by its old colonial master,
when on the 11th November 1921, Sir Joseph Cook presented his credentials and became
the first Australian High Commissioner too the United Kingdom to carry the status of
Ambassador. During the ceremony King George welcomed “ the representative of our
ex-colony , the newly independent nation of Australia.

As this was happening G.F. Pearce was representing Australia at the earlier mentioned
Washington conference from the 12th November 1921 to February 1922 resulting in the
signing of the Treaties of Washington.

Independent nationhood confirmed by contemporary scholar

On the 14th. July, 1996, investigators working in the archives to the League of Nations ,
held in Geneva by the Swiss Government, found the original copy of the League of
Nations Covenant . Interspersed among the text is a commentary in italics by Sir Geoffrey
Butler, KBE Fellow in international law and diplomacy at Corpus Christy College,
Cambridge University.

The discovery of the original copy of the Covenant revealed Sir Geoffrey’s commentaries
had been part of this crucial document from the beginning, not added later as some
historians had believed.

Full significance of Article I of the Covenant has never been widely understood by the
people of Australia, whose future was irrevocably altered by the Treaty of Versailles of
28th. June, 1919.

Sir Geoffrey Butler’s comments went to the heart of the events. His commentary on
Article I states: "It is arguable that this article is the Covenant's most significant
measure. By it, the British Dominions, namely New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and

22

Canada have their independent nationhood established for the first time. There may be
friction over small matters in giving effect this internationally acknowledged fact, but the
Dominions will always look back to the League of Nations Covenant as their Declaration
of Independence. That the change has come silently about and has been welcomed in all
corners of the British Empire is the final vindication of the United Empire Loyalists. ”

Australian Prime Minister advises Australian people of the achievement of
nationhood

On his return to Australia, fresh from the Peace Conference and the setting of his
signature to the Treaty of Versailles, Prime Minister, William Morris Hughes, reported to
the people of Australia by way of a motion to have the Parliament approve the Treaty of
Peace signed at Versailles. An examination of Hansard reveals that throughout his
address to the Australian Parliament he was clearly aware of the magnitude of what had
been achieved for and on behalf of the people of Australia :

“It was abundantly evident to my colleague” (The deputy Prime Minister Sir Joseph
Cook) “and to myself as well as the representatives of other Dominions, that Austt'alia
must have separate representation at the Peace Conference. Consider the vastness of the
Empire and the diversity of interests represented. Look at it geographically, industrially,
politically, or how you will, and it will be seen that no one can speak for Australia but
those who speak as representatives of Australia herself. Great Britain could not, in the
very nature of things, speak for us. Britain has very many interests to consider besides
ours, and some of those interests do not always coincide with ours. It was necessary,
therefore - and the same applies to other Dominions - that we should be represented. Not
as at first suggested, in a British panel, where we would take our place in rotation, but
with separate representation like other belligerent nations. Separate and direct
representation was at length conceded to Australia and to every other self-governing
Dominion. ” (It was President Woodrow Wilson of the United States of America who
formally proposed that the Dominions represent themselves.)

“By this recognition Australia became a nation, and entered into a family of nations
on a footing of equality. We had earned that, or, rather, our soldiers had earned it for
us. In this achievement of Victory they had played their part, and no nation had a
better right to be represented than Australia. This representation was vital to us,
particularly when we consider that at this world Conference thirty two nations and over
1,000,000,000 people were directly represented. It was a conference of representatives
of the people of the whole world, excepting only Germany, the other enemy powers,
Russia, and a few minor nations. ” AN N EXU RE 13

As set out above, Hughes reinforced this in his September 30th 1921 speech to the
Australian Parliament after his return from the 1921 Imperial Conference.

ANNEXURE 8

23

Terms of Treaty of Versailles including Covenant of the League of Nations written
into Australian law

Hughes motion became a Bill through which his and his deputies actions in establishing
the right for Australia to be represented independently and thus become a nation signatory
to the Treaty of Versailles and a Member State of the League of Nations was agreed to
unanimously by the Australian Parliament.

History clearly records that, in international law, Australia moved from being a British
colony/Dominion under the sovereignty of the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland and that this occurred on 1st October 1919. The Covenant of the
League of Nations became part of international law on 10th January 1920 with Australia
as one of the 29 foundation Member States. Australia’s sovereign nation status was
guaranteed under article X of the League’s Covenant. The Treaty of Versailles and hence
the Covenant of the League of Nations was written into Australian law via the Treaty of
Peace Act ANNEXURE 13

Sovereign Nation Status achieved : Legal instrument necessary to bridge break in
legal continuity not created : Governmental independence denied.

All theories of sovereignty hold that any change in sovereignty is necessarily
accompanied by a break in legal continuity. Examination of historical records reveal that
it is abundantly clear that those individuals directly involved were frilly conscious of the
momentous events that were precipitating as a result of the ‘Great War’.

However what is clear, some 79 years after that event, is that the hard won sovereignty
achieved for, and by, the people of Australia has been betrayed. This has occurred through
a failure to replace the instrument of government, the Constitution which is the property
of the United Kingdom with a constitution which belongs to the sovereign people of
Australia..

The statesmen of the day were clearly aware that the alteration in sovereignty required
constitutional adjustments to bridge the resultant break in legal continuity.

Resolution IX of the 1917 Imperial War Conference not only signalled the intention to
recognise the Dominions as “autonomous nations” it also recorded “....The readjustment
of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and
intricate a subject to be dealt with during the war, and that it should form the subject of a
special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of
hostilities ."

It was pragmatically evident that when the colony of Australia, became a nation in its own
right, the manifest change in sovereignty demanded adjustments to the political and legal
structure then in use. The severed dependency on the Parliament, the Judiciary and the
Monarchy of the United Kingdom needed to be replaced by a system agreed to, and
belonging to, the sovereign people of the Commonwealth of Australia.

24

During the Parliament, 1919-1922 : “The most interesting lapsed measure from a
political point of view was the Constitutional Convention Bill introduced in the House of
Representatives by Hughes in December 1921. At the election, Hughes had pledged both
himself and his party to the calling of such a convention, and during 1920 he frequently
repeated the promise. The Country Party leader, Earle Page, had likewise frequently
advocated such a course. ” The labour party were opposed to a convention maintaining
that it should be the parliament which decided constitutional amendment proposals. “As
time went on, the enthusiasm of Hughese’s colleagues for constitutional reform rapidly

declined. . When Hughes finally introduced his Bill in December 1921, he was in

the humiliating position of having to admit his proposals did not have a friend in the
house. The Bill provided for a convention consisting partly of elected members
representing the people in the same proportions as they were represented in the House
and partly of members nominated in equal numbers by State Parliaments. ” Earl Page
and no doubt others, " while still advocating constitutional reform ” could not agree on the
composition of, and manner in which the convention should be conducted. The Bill was
introduced at the ‘fag end’ of a session when in any event there was not time to deal with
it properly. “When it became plain that the second reading would be defeated, Hughes
withdrew the Bill and announced that the government would instead bring proposals for
amending the Constitution directly before the house. (Geoffrey Sawer page 203
‘Australian federal Politics and Law 1901- 1929’ Melbourne University Press 1956
Reprint 1972. ISBN 0 522 84033 7)

As British interests were determined in 1900 not to lose control over political and
economic affairs in Australia so was the case in 1919/1920 and there after!.

History records that in the 1920’s ‘secret’ conservative organisations which held
distinctly pro-British interests were established. These included highly influential right
wing political organisation as well as paramilitary groups such as the New Guard and the
‘White Army’. These organisations were highly successful in propagandising and
manipulating issues to create what now is seen as an unseemly loyalty to all things
British. The distortion of historic realities and the manipulation of public opinion had,
and still has an enormous effect on the attitudes Australian citizens carry in relation to
their country.

While the manipulation of public opinion is in no way unique to Australia, such practice,
when applied in conjunction with a statute which requires compulsory voting under a
system which is dominated by political parties and is devoid of civil rights results in a
form of democracy which is unique to Australia.

Compulsory voting in Commonwealth elections was introduced by way of a private
Members Bill on the 31st July 1924. Compulsory voting in all State Government
elections was introduced soon after.

Australian Parliament confirms date of achievement of sovereign nation status

Despite the undoubted manipulation of the general populous in relation to internal politics
it has been necessary that, those assuming the power to govern over the Australian
people, project Australia’s true status into the International arena. That the ‘Government’

25

has continually recognised Australia’s independent sovereign nation status is manifest in
the myriad of International Treaties that its plenipotentiaries have signed.

As recently as November 1995 the Australian Parliament through the release of a report
by the ‘Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee’ restated the historical
events leading up to the achievement of independence. Citing, in the process, the 1917
Imperial War Conference resolution, the 1919 Peace Conference and confirmations
arising during the 1923 Imperial Conference. The report states at paragraph 4.13:
“Australia became an independent member of the League of Nations and the
International Labour Organisation in 1919. ...” and at 4.14 "... This admission to the
league and the International Labour Organisation involved recognition by other
countries that Australia was now a sovereign nation with the necessary ‘international
personality’ to enter into international relations.” (‘Trick or Treaty? Commonwealth
Power to Make and Implement Treaties pp. 48, 49, paras. 4.12, 4.13, 4.15: ISBN 0 642
24418 9 : See extract Annexure 13) ANNEXURE 13

United Kingdom Government retains control of Australia’s affairs

The Government of Australia remained subordinate to the Government of the United
Kingdom. *

* NOTE of explanation : The Act of Settlement of 1701 removed the automatic
hereditary right to succession to the throne of the United Kingdom. The 1701 Act
requires that the Monarch be appointed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
The Act of settlement has not been incorporated into any other Act, has not been
repealed and has not been amended. Although originally an English law it was
incorporated into UK law by the Act of Union of 1706. In short, the UK Parliament
is not subject to the Monarch of the UK, rather the Monarch is subject to the
Parliament. Thus, contrary to popular belief, ultimate sovereignty over Australia
has always been held by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and not the
Monarch of that Kingdom.

It is also significant to note that the Sovereign of the United Kingdom is a British
citizen subject to the laws of the United Kingdom and the Treaties entered into by
the Parliament and Government of the UK.

However when the Queen is not acting as the Sovereign she is in fact a German
citizen by descent from the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover. This arrangement
was deliberately put in place so that any one of the Princes of Hanover, descended
from Sophia, could be anointed to the throne of England/United Kingdom.

Being a British subject and subject to British law the myth that the Monarch is
above the law is a straight denial of the mechanisms by which she holds the throne.
Sovereignty over the Australian Constitution lies not with the Queen but with the
United Kingdom government. ANNEXURE 2

Concealed forces, in a manner signalled prophetically by Sir Geoffrey Butler through a
section of his comment under article XXVI in the same, original copy, of the League of
Nations Covenant ensured that Australia continued to be governed as if it had remained a
colony of the United Kingdom.

“There is a chance that the mass of men may rally to a constructive Internationalism
which preserves and not destroys the tradition of the nation state. It is wise neither to
talk, nor to pitch our hopes, too high. The new diplomacy is bounded with the same limits
as the old. The Men who will serve the new diplomacy are certainly not wiser than the
men who served the old; they certainly have less experience of international affairs.
Capitalist 2 reed and mob isnorance have at times informed the foreisn policy of states
ever since man save wav to 2 reearious instinct.....” (emphasis added)

The historical truth is that the Commonwealth of Australia achieved the status of an
independent sovereign nation in 1919. This was confirmed in the Australian
Parliament as early as 1919 and as late as 1995.

Knowledge of the legal realities and the necessity for adjustments has been
concealed from the Australian people.

No instrument was created, and no further attempt of any kind was made to bridge
the fundamental legal void created when, because of the transfer of sovereignty
from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the People of Australia, the
application of British law became invalid.

*************************

27

THE CONSTITUTION: OFFICIAL ATTITUDES

Current ‘official’ attitudes towards validity of the Australian Constitution and the
Monarchy

Australia : Foundation Member State of the United Nations : Independent
Sovereign Nation status confirmed and guaranteed.

H.V.Evatt and F.M.Forde represented Australia at the 50 nation United Nations
Conference on International Organisation in San Francisco from 25 April 1945 through
26 June 1945. Australia signed the United Nations Charter as a foundation Member State
on 26 June 1945. The United Nations Organisation replaced the League of Nations which
was terminated in 1946. ANNEXURE 14

Historical facts which clearly demonstrate Australia’s achievement of independent
sovereign nation status were confirmed in correspondence, from the Acting Director and
Deputy to the Under-Secretary-General, Office of the Legal Counsel of the United
Nations, Paul C. Szasz, dated 19th December 1997, stating:

“In relation to your question we note that the Charter of the United Nations entered into
force on 24 October 1945 and that Australia was an original Member of the United
Nations, having signed the Charter on 26th June 1945. Australia’s status as of that date
was obviously that of a sovereign State ". AN N EXU RE 6

The Charter of the United Nations was enacted into Australian law on the 14th September
1945 by way of the ‘Charter of the United Nations Act 1945’ ANNEXURE 15

An Australian citizen Dr H.V. Evatt served as the Inaugural Secretary-General of the
United Nations.

That the Australian Constitution remains United Kingdom law confirmed.

It was reported that, in reply to a Parliamentary question in July 1995, the chief law
officer of the United Kingdom, the Lord Chancellor, stated:

“The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900 is an Act of the United
Kingdom Parliament. The right to repeal this Act remains the sole prerogative of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom. There is no means by which under United Kingdom
or international law this power can be transferred to another country or Member State of
the United Nations. Indeed, the United Nations Charter itself precludes any such action. ”

A request for confirmation of the correctness of the above statement was addressed to the
Office of the Lord Chancellor. On 11 December 1997 the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office of the United Kingdom Government responded on behalf of the Lord Chancellor:-

“The statement you mention in your letter is an accurate description of the power of the
British Parliament in relation to its own legislation . The continuing role of the

28

Australian Constitution Act as Australia’s fundamental law is, of course, entirely a
matter for Australia. There are at present no plans to repeal the Constitution Act

The Government of the United Kingdom would, however, give consideration to the repeal
of the Commonwealth of Australia Act if a request to that effect were made by the
Government of Australia. To date no such request has been made. ” ANNEXURE 9

The Authority of the Monarchy in the affairs of Australia

On 17th July 1997 the Private Secretary to Queen Elizabeth II and the United Kingdom
High Commissioner to Australia were asked a series of questions relating to the role of
the Monarchy in the affairs of Australia. He chose to ask the Governor-General of
Australia to respond. He in turn asked the Attorney-General of Australia to respond. The
Attorney-General seems to have avoided responsibility for the answers by having, under
the title of the ‘Office of the Attomey-GeneraP, required a researcher provide the answers
over her own signature.

Question “As Queen of Australia does Queen Elizabeth II head an institution which is
separate and independent from the Monarchy of the United Kingdom”

Reply The Queens role as Queen of Australia is, in legal terms, distinct from her role
as Queen of the United Kingdom (as it is distinct from her role as Queen of Canada or of
New Zealand. ”

Question: “Under the laws of the United Kingdom is it permissible for the sovereign to
issue letters patent to non British subjects?”

Reply: “I am afraid I cannot say whether the Queen, when acting in her capacity as
Queen of the United Kingdom, can issue letters Patent to non-British subjects. ”

Question “I have been advised that the Letters Patent of 1984 were issued by the Queen
of Australia under the Great Seal of Australia and that the Keeper of the Royal Seals,
Lord Huntington, has advised that only the Queen of the United Kingdom can issue
Letters Patent covering the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.”

Reply “The Queen of Australia, when acting in relation to Australia, acts on the advice
of the Australian Government. I have not seen and therefore cannot comment on any
advice from the Keeper of the Royal Seals’ to the effect that the Queen of Australia
cannot issue Letters Patent in relation to the office of the Governor-General on the
Advice of the Australian Government. ” ANNEXURE 10

The enactment of valid laws under the current system of government in Australia is
not possible

As unsatisfactory as these replies are they do confirm that the Queen of Australia is
considered to be a legal entity separate from the Queen of the United Kingdom. It is
pertinent to mention that there exists a strong argument that the ‘Queen of Australia’

29

possess no legal authority whatsoever. However, let it be assumed that that office does
possess power then, serious questions present themselves when it is pointed out that the
Queen of Australia has been created to be the Executive Head of the Government of the
Commonwealth of Australia while at the same time the Queen of the United Kingdom
remains the Executive Head of the separate States which constitute the Federal
Commonwealth of Australia.

The Queen of Australia has been created and installed as the Executive Head of the
Commonwealth of which the fundamental law, the Constitution, remains part of a current
Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which, it has been confirmed, is the only
authority which can repeal the Act. This is compounded by the fact that the only
Monarchy that the Act, and thus the Constitution, recognises is the Monarchy in the
sovereignty of the United Kingdom. The result of this is that the Governor - General who
is appointed by a Queen of Australian cannot give assent to any law created under the
Constitution..

Australian Attorney-General’s Office ignores implications of international law.

When questions pertaining to the validly of the continuing application of the Australian
Constitution are asked of the Commonwealth Attorney-General the standard reply is :

“You will be aware that the Commonwealth Constitution was passed as part of a British
Act of Parliament in 1900. A British Act was necessary because before 1900 Australia
was merely a collection of self-governing British colonies and ultimate power over those
colonies rested with the British Parliament.

However, during the course of this century Australia has become an independent nation
and the character of the Constitution as the fundamental law is now seen as deriving not
from its status as an Act of British Parliament, which no longer has any power over
Australia, but from its acceptance by the people.

Nevertheless, the Constitution remains part of an Act of the British Parliament. That Act
has not been repealed. " ANNEXURE 16

When this approach is aligned with the fact that conditional clause 8 of the Act states, in
part, that the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self - governing colony for the
purposes of the Act. And clause 2 defines the Act as functioning in the Monarchy of the
United Kingdom it will be recognised that Australia’s chief law officer is either inept or
is attempting to be deceptive.

However, when the realities of the consequences deriving from the fact that Australia has,
through its ‘Treaty of Peace Act 1919’ and its ‘Charter of the United Nations Act 1945’,
effectively written International law into Australian domestic law, the reasoning
contained in such responses borders on the bizarre.

30

But when the Attorney-General’s continual avoidance of the implications and
responsibilities under international law is summarised, as it is in his 27th My 1999
response to the notification of the intent to file this submission requesting an ICT, a
policy of shear contempt is displayed. ANNEXURE 35

“. Australia is now a fully independent nation . but this does not mean that

Imperial law ceased to have any force .”

"... the High Court has decided that international law which affects or creates rights or
imposes obligations on individuals is not applicable to Australians unless domestic
legislation is passed implementing those agreements which affect or create individual
rights or obligations, the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 ('Cth) to which you
refer, merely approves the Charter without binding Australians as part of the law of the
Commonwealth and therefore cannot be relied upon as a justification for otherwise
unjustifiable executive acts. ”

Since gaining independence the people of Australia have, at no time, been given the
opportunity to accept the Constitution, and even if they had been, being an inseparable
part of an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament, there is no way under either British or
International law that it could be transferred to a now independent Australia.

Equally the people of Australia have never been provided with an opportunity to devise
and agree to be governed under a constitution of their own.

Theory of progressive sovereignty fails to resolve dilemma

This same 27th July letter continues to promote the unsatisfactory, and in many ways
dangerous, theory of progressive sovereignty: “ Although Australia is now a fully
independent nation, this has been achieved through an evolutionary process throughout
this century. ”

Callinan J., one of the dissenting judges in ‘Sue v Hill’ (Annexure 30) commented at
paras. 290 and 291:" The evolutionary theory is, with respect, a theory to be regarded

with great caution . The great concern about an evolutionary theory of this kind is the

doubt to which it gives rise with respect to peoples ’ rights, status and obligations as this

case shows . In reality, a decision of this court upon that basis would change the law

by holding that, notwithstanding that the Constitution did not treat the United Kingdom
as a foreign power at Federation and for sometime thereafter, it may and should do so
now. ”

Despite such pronunciations, for the purpose of argument let it be assumed that, contrary
to all theories of sovereignty, it is some-how possible, as held by the Australian Attorney-
General and most High Court Judges, for the colony of the Commonwealth of Australia
to gradually and progressively become an independent nation. Then upon such a
supposition it may be possible to argue that United Kingdom law could continue to be

31

used in Australia up to and until the claimed indefinable time that Australia became a
sovereign nation.

But at one minute after Australian achieved sovereignty, British, Australian and
International law all dictate that the United Kingdom is a power foreign to Australia and
that, as such, its colonial laws may no longer be legitimately applied to the Australian
people. For the situation to be otherwise constitutes an affront to the principle of
independence and self determination.

Clearly at that instant when Australia achieved independence any, and all, Imperial law
relating to Australia, including the Constitution Act, become ‘frozen’ into redundancy.
Such law does not even need to be repealed, it just ‘dies’.

As Callinan J. points out, a '‘..ruling that the evolutionary process is complete . would

change the law. ” Resulting in adjustments and modifications "with respect to peoples’
rieltts . status and oblieations . ”. Clearly, irrespective of when it was that the peoples of
Australia achieved independence, at that time they gained the status of a free peoples
and a right to self determination. A right which has been denied by those who were and
are, even now, under an obligation to effect the principle of self determination on the
peoples behalf.

That this has not happened has clearly resulted in a continuing act of political aggression
on the people of Australia which is, under Article 2 Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the UN
Charter, strengthened by resolutions 2131 (XX) of 21 December 1965 and 2625 (XXV)
of 24 October 1970), an offence under international law. ANNEXURE 17

It is abundantly clear that the political and legal system currently operating in
Australia is not only aggressive to the sovereignty of the Australian people but is
totally offensive to international law. It is offensive to the right of the Australian
people to enjoy self-determination, the fundamental principle on which the United
Nations has been established. And since the Charter of the United Nations has been
written into Australian law, those assuming power to govern the nation do so in
deference to, not only international law, but also the laws of their own land.

m k'&&'k-k'&'k-k m k m k m k m k-k'k'k m k m k m k m k-k-k-k m k^;'k

32

THE CONCEALED COLONY

CONSERVATIVE FORCES AND UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNMENT ACT TO
CONCEAL THE CONTINUING APPLICATION OF COLONIAL LAW IN
AUSTRALIA

An examination of the correspondence submitted in annexures 9, 10, 11, 20, 16, 22 & 35
will adequately confirm that people assuming high office adopt a policy calculated to
confuse issues in an endevour to conceal the fact that those same people do not
legitimately hold office and that, by continuing to exert political influence in the affairs of
Australia the United Kingdom Government is in contravention of International law. The
correspondence is evasive, misleading and contradictory.

A citizen cannot know of the pressures that may have been applied, or indeed, the reasons
for their application, to cause the internal affairs of Australia to be administered in a way
which is fundamentally not in the primary interests of the people of Australia.

Through even a cursory examination of historical fact, together with the recent
correspondence referred to above, it becomes manifestly clear that the United Kingdom
Government continues to choose not to relinquish its control over those assuming the
power to govern over the Australian people. Equally those assuming that power have
resorted to deceit and deception that they so that may, in turn, retain their positions of
power.

Those assuming the power to govern over the Australian people can rightly be
described as agents of a power foreign to Australia. Clearly they too choose not to
relinquish power.

Chicanery evident from the beginning

Because it is so significant, the opening speech to the 1921 Imperial Conference in
London by the British Prime Minister Lloyd George is again quoted:- “In recognition of
their services and achievements in the war the British Dominions have now been
accepted fully into the comity of nations of the whole world. They are signatories to the
Treaty of Versailles and of all other Treaties of Peace ; they are members of the Assembly
of the League of Nations, and their representatives have already attended meetings of the
League; in other words, they have achieved full nation status, and they now stand beside
the United Kingdom as equal partners in the dignities and responsibilities of the British
Commonwealth. If there are any means by which that status can be rendered even more
clear to their own communities and to the world at large, we shall be glad to have them
put forward at this Conference .' ANNEXURE 3 and

associated with a declaration issued by the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee at the
1926 Imperial Conference:- “There is, however one most important element in it
which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters,
reached its full development, we refer to the group of self-governing communities
composed of Great Britain and the Dominions . Their position and mutual relation may
be readily defined .. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire,
equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or

33

external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown , and freely
associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations” thus confirming that
the absolute equality of the Dominions with the United Kingdom along with their
attainment of nationhood was unquestionably understood. That action was not, and is not
being taken by the United Kingdom Government through the repealing of existing
colonial law points to an unpardonable chicanery which was further extended some 5
years later through the enactment of the Statute of Westminster.

The Statute of Westminster Act 1931 was passed by the United Kingdom Parliament
some 12 Years after Australia had become independent. By virtue of the terms of the
Covenant of the League of Nations (Article X), Britain could no longer validly enact
legislation designed for application within, and to affect the internal affairs of, a
sovereign Australia, a foundation Member State of the League ANNEXURE 18
The only means whereby respectability could be given to the United Kingdom’s
continuing interference in the internal affairs of a now independent Australia was through
the creation of an international arrangement or treaty in accordance with Article 18 of the
Covenant. No such Treaty or Arrangement was made.

That the Parliament of Australia, in 1942, passed The Statute of Westminster Adoption
Act 1942 with retrospectivity to 1939, points to a further attempt to give some semblance
of respectability to the continuing use of the colonial law, ‘An Act to Constitute
Commonwealth of Australia (UK) 1900’. This occurred after Australia, without a formal
declaration, was at war with Germany, and at the time when a new Prime Minister was
declaring war on Japan. Thus it may well be interpreted that, through this action, those
exercising power in Australia were acting in the interests of the United Kingdom and in
collusion with powers foreign to Australia without possessing the legitimate authority of
the Australian people to do so.

The Statute of Westminster Act 1931 (UK) and the Statute of Westminster adoption Act
1942 (Commonwealth) constitute reciprocal arrangement between the United Kingdom
and Australia. Because these arrangements were not registered in accordance with Article
18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations or the appropriate Article of the Charter of
the United Nations they cannot be presented in an international forum. The same can be
said of ‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia.’ ANNEXURE 19

Ex- Prime Minister reveals. UK legislation not in best interests of Australia : Statute
of Westminster X931.

Ex- Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, said of this legislation, " Australia's
relations with Britain are regulated by the Statute of Westminster, 1931. The compact
originally included not only Australia and Canada but South Africa and Ireland, which
have gone their own ways; Newfoundland, which has been incorporated into Canada;
and New Zealand, a Unitary Unicameral state. Of those countries only Australia and
Canada are still not yet absolutely independent of Britain .

The Statute of Westminster is no longer an instrument of Canadian and Australian
independence ” (Quite clearly it never was!) “but an impediment to it. It is begging the

34

question to say, as the late British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs said in the House of Commons on 21 December 1976, that ‘The United Kingdom
Government for their part would not stand in the way of any changes that command the
agreement of all concerned in Australia. ”

“It is precisely when our Federal and State Governments do not agree that Britain is

involved. . Under the present system Britain will be brought into Australian

controversies whenever State Governments believe that they can use their colonial status

to frustrate their own national government. . Australia should no longer accept

the Dominion status that other British colonies have cast off. It would suit the dignity of
both British (Britain) and Australia if the Statute of Westminster were repealed. ”
(‘Towards a Republic’, chapter 12 in 'The Truth of the Matter ’ 2nd edn, Penguin,
Ringwood, Victoria, 1983, pp. 175-185 )

Ex Prime Minister Whitlam, through his writings seems to make it clear that those
assuming high office have knowingly and perhaps willingly been prepared to continue to
serve in the interest on the Government of the United Kingdom : “The standard
conservative response to a republic is that the present system is working well enough. It
is said that Australia is to all intents and purposes an independent country and a republic
would make no useful difference. In fact, to take just one of these points, Australia is not
a wholly independent country at all. All state governors, for example, are British officials
appointed by a British head of State on the recommendation of the British government;
all state honours are awarded in the name of a defunct Empire and by the British Head of
State on the recommendations of British ministers; all state courts operating under state
laws are subject to veto by a court in another country. ” (‘The Truth of the Matter’
Gough Whitlam pp 181, 182)

While it is that Whitlam wrote this after he was forced from office in November of 1975,
he was clearly aware of the anomalous situation which existed. While he was Prime
Minister, his Government chose to not rectify the situation but instead to further
compound it.

The chicanery continues:- Persistent attempts to conceal the truth writes the British
Monarchy out of Australian law and renders the invalid Constitution dumb.

The Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973, obliterated the Australian Constitution.

The compounding occurred thus: Australia’s enrolment as a foundation Member State of
the United Nations emphasised its status as a sovereign nation resulting in the questioning
of the capacity of the parliament of the United Kingdom to continue to bestow titles on
the Queen with respect to Australia as well as the other the ex-Dominions.

Accordingly the UK Government advised the governments of her ex-Dominions that if
they wished to retain a link with the Monarchy they had to pass their own legislation since
the UK could not legally do so.

Since Australia’s fundamental law, the Constitution, remained part of an Act of British
law which, under clause 2 of the Act, recognised only the Monarch of the United

35

Kingdom, Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies and his government had to either face the
truth of the situation and produce a new Constitution or to frame and pass what became
the “Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953’.

This Act bestowed on her Majesty the Titles of ‘Queen of the United Kingdom’ and
‘Queen of Australia’. Thus occurred another attempt to squeeze a little more life from a
redundant, a dead Act of United Kingdom law.

However, this was frustrated and complicated when, in 1971 the United Kingdom
Parliament passed their ‘Immigration and Asylum Act’(amended in 1972 and 1973). The
effect of this was to deprive Australians of British citizenship and/or designation as
British Subjects. Thus Australians became ‘aliens’ and not entitled to privileges under
British law.

It was recognised that the Queen of the United Kingdom could not rule over ‘aliens’.
Australians, having lost their British citizenship could no longer be ruled over by the
Queen of the United Kingdom.

The government of Australia had no choice but to repeal the ‘Royal Styles and Titles Act
of 1953’. In its stead Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and his government drafted

andpassed the ‘Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973’. ANNEXURE 20

This Act specifically removes the title ‘Queen of the United Kingdom’ and simply
bestows on Queen Elizabeth the II the title of ‘Queen of Australia’.

However, Section 2 of the Constitution Act reads, “ The provisions of this Act referring to
the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the Sovereientv of the
United Kingdom” /emphasis added)

The 1973 Act had no power to alter the Constitution as no referendum, in accord with the
provisions of section 128 of the Constitution was conducted. And in any case the Act’s
conditional Clause 2 defining the Monarchy for the purposes of the Act and hence the
Constitution, as “..in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.. ” cannot be altered by any
authority other than the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Thus Whitlam’s actions effectively removed the ‘ Queen of the United Kingdom ’ from
executive power in Australia. Such an office does not now exist in Australian law.

HOWEVER, (as an ‘aside’):-

The Royal Assent to this 1973 Royal Styles and Titles Act was applied personally by
Queen Elizabeth II on the occasion of a ‘State’ visit to Australia. Serious questions could
be raised in relation to this and subsequent actions of this British citizen. For she has
assumed a role and continues to exercise powers which she patently did not, and does not
possess, to alter and continue to influence the political affairs of the sovereign nation of
Australia, as well as the governments of the separate States that constitute the nation.

36

Despite this ‘aside’ the fact remains, the Constitution Act and hence the Constitution
cannot recognise any Monarch other than the Monarch m the sovereignty of the United
Kingdom thus all Australian legislation, if not before, cannot be deemed to be valid after
31st July 1973.

Quite clearly if it can possibly be argued that it wasn’t so before, the Australian
Constitution certainly became defunct in 1973! In point of fact Prime Minister
Whitlam’s action effectively obliterated a Constitution which was already invalid .

37

THE EXECUTIVE DICTATORSHIP

The continuing use of an invalid and now defunct Constitution invites people
assuming power to adopt dictatorial behaviour: precedent established.

Effectively the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution is a document for dictatorship.
For instance it allows an appointed Governor-General to govern without a parliament and
with ministers solely appointed by him/her for as long as the Governor-General may wish.
The Governor-General is also commander in chief of the armed forces.

That this is so was amply demonstrated in 1975.

In November of that year Australian politics was thrown into turmoil when the Governor-
General, Sir John Kerr through a spectacular application of the ‘Royal prerogative’
dismissed a popularly elected government (albeit by way of the compulsory voting
system) and its leader the Prime Minister. Kerr called and installed the minority
opposition to govern. When the artificially generated situation which he used as the
reason for the dismissal of the Whitlam Government was, within hours, resolved,
Governor-General Kerr refused to dismiss the individual he had installed as Prime
Minister who was unable to command the respect of the House and reinstate the former
Prime Minister in which the House clearly had confidence, as had the Australian people
through the election process.

In the aftermath of the November 1975 dismissal of Prime Minister Whitlam and his
Government, by Governor-General Kerr, and the subsequent refusal by Kerr to reinstate
Whitlam the Speaker of the House, Scholes, sought direction of the Queen. The reply
from the Queen’s private secretary confirmed she no longer has power in Australia.

11 As we understand the situation here, the Australian constitution firmly places the
prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the
representative of The Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an
Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and the Queen has no part in the
decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution.

The validity of this advice will not stand even cursory examination for the Constitution
does not grant prerogative powers to a Governor-General as the representative of “The
Queen of Australia”. Conditional clause 2 of the Act states, “The provisions of this Act
referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the
sovereignty of the United Kingdom” and since, outside the UK Parliament, no provision
exists to alter this clause then all references to the Queen in clause 9, the Constitution,
refer to the Queen of the United Kingdom.

(The legality of this whole situation is thrown further into turmoil when it is recognised
that Governor - General Kerr was installed under the 29th October 1900 Letters Patent
which had been issued by Queen Victoria and which, according to British law were

38

interred with her after her death on 22nd January 1901. No new Letters Patent were
issued until 1984.)

Offices not in possession of valid authority appoint Australian Governor-General .

Those ‘New’ Letters Patent constituting the Office of Governor - General were issued by
‘The Queen of Australia’ over the signature of the Prime Minister. Neither of these
Offices is recognised by the Act and hence the Constitution either. Since neither can exert
any authority under the Constitution. A Governor-General appointed by the powerless
‘Queen of Australia’ can only occupy a purely honorary position created within a small
elite ‘club’ involved with power games. “Pll make you the Prime Minister if you will
make me the Governor-General”!. ANNEXURE 21

So, evidenced once again, is a continuation of the chicanery which has been perpetuated,
(for nearly 80 years), in an attempt to give a superficial appearance that the basis for the
government of Australia remains valid.

The fact is that, for legislation of the Australian parliament to become law, it must receive
‘Royal Assent’. Under normal circumstances this function is delegated to, and carried out
by, the Governor-General. The fact that the Governor-General’s Office and personal
Commission were created, issued and sealed by an authority not recognised by the
Constitution then legislation created under that Constitution cannot be given valid assent
by a Governor-General appointed in such a manner.

However, the continuing fact is that British interests, from the United Kingdom
government down actually maintain control through the agency of a de-facto Australian
government which draws its power, via ‘the Queen’, from the government of the United
Kingdom.

In relation to the 1975 ‘coup’ commentators around the World were dismayed at how live
a force a claimed royal prerogative could still represent in late twentieth century power
politics.

Constitution powerless to protect convention and democratic principles.

Robert Lacey asked the question, “Can these powers with royal origin he credibly
exercised by a non - royal nominee? " and, “ If Governor-Generals are to exercise
presidential powers, what role is left for the monarchy? ”

After the event, deposed Prime Minister, Constitutionalist at heart, eminent scholar and
lawyer, Gough Whitlam, commented thus:

“No instructions and no constitutions can long survive if indeed they embody the
contradictions, paradoxes and absurdities implied by Sir John Kerr’s actions and his
interpretation of the Australian Constitution. According to the new dispensation these are
things a governor-general can do without his governments advice, irrespective of his
government’s advice, or against his government’s advice:

39

He can dismiss the government. He can appoint and dismiss individual ministers. He
can decide which department each minister is to administer. He can dissolve the House of
Representatives. If, for instance, the Senate refuses to vote on a Budget, he can dissolve
the House of Representatives and if, after a fresh election for the House of
Representatives, the Senate still refuses to vote on the Budget, he can again dissolve the
House of Representatives. He can call or prorogue both houses. He need not grant a
double dissolution although the government asks for it. He need not call a joint sitting if
the Houses still disagree after a double dissolution. He need not assent to a bill or to bills
passed at any such joint sitting. He need not submit to the electors a bill to alter the
Constitution which has twice been passed by one House and rejected by the other, even if
he is advised to do so by the government, he need not in fact assent to a bill to alter the
Constitution even if it has been approved by the electors. He need not assent to any bills
which are passed by both Houses. He could even refuse to take the advice of his minister
to send a message to Parliament asking for grants money.

The actual events of November 1975, the conduct of Mr Fraser (the leader of the
opposition installed as Prime Minister and not dismissed by G-G Kerr when he failed to
gain the confidence of the House of Representatives, that is, the blouse of government.)
and his followers, the Chief Justice and State Premiers, ratified by Sir John Kerr and
enshrined in the Kerr interpretation of the Constitution, lead inexorably to a collapse of
the system.

Australian people continue to be governed as if they remain colonial subjects. However,
because they have been deprived of British citizenship they do not enjoy access to the
civil rights protection afforded by way of British law. It follows then that, if they choose
to conform to the rule of law and order, they will continue to lack the power to express
their rightful sovereignty over their affairs and so be deprived of the power to legitimise
the system of government.

The 1975 incident has demonstrated just how easily the nominal democratic right
permitted by the invalid Constitution in use in Australia can be totally abused.

Australian Government rightly described as an Executive Dictatorship

When all aspects of the events leading up to and following the 1975 dismissal of the
popularly elected government (again, albeit via a system of compulsory voting) are
examined it becomes clear that Australia, since 1920, has, with the assistance of the
government and Monarchy of the United Kingdom, been Governed by Executive
Dictatorships. This fact had hitherto been camouflaged behind a charade of democracy.

Powerless ‘Queen of Australia’ appoints honorary Governor-General to assent to
laws made under a defunct Constitution

It would seem that the 1973 Royal Styles and Titles Act in removing the title Queen of
the United Kingdom with respect to Australian law together with the 1975 ruling from the
Palace on Speaker Scholes request for direction, resulted in Prime Minister Hawke

40

visiting the Queen at her Balmoral Castle in 1984 that she might sign new Letters Patent
for the constitution of the Office of Governor-General.

(Up until that time Governors - General had been appointed under an obsolete set of
Letters Patent issued by Queen Victoria and which were not replaced by the Monarch
who ascended to the throne on her demise on 22nd January 1901. Nor by any subsequent
Monarch)

Thus on the 24th August 1984 New Letters Patent, over the signature of Prime Minister
Hawke, were issued under the Great Seal of Australia for appointment of the Governor-
General by the “Queen of Australia”. ANNEXURE 21

By this action it could be argued that Queen Elizabeth II contravened conditional clause 3
of the Act, which concludes “But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation,
appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth”, “The Queen,” by definition,
(clause 2 of the Act) can only be the Queen of the United Kingdom.

In fact it may be argued that the Queen, not being above the law of the United Kingdom
(1701 Act of Settlement) has contravened a current law of the United Kingdom.

It may also be argued that, as a British subject, her presumption to grant authority to an
individual to call himself a Governor-General and to suggest that through her he has the
power to assent to laws and to repeat any or all of those dictatorial/autocratic actions
precented by the late Sir John Kerr was, in fact, to commit an offence under international
law.

What ever may be projected, what is evident through, both the 1975 reply to Speaker
Scholes and the issuing of these Letters Patent, is that Queen Elizabeth II has been, even
if unwittingly, a persistent perpetrator of the chicanery which has been necessary to
permit the governing of Australia by persons definable as agents of a power foreign to
Australia.

The fact is, the 1984 Letters Patent solved nothing. They only served to further
compound the invalidity of the political/judicial system operating in Australia.

A Further analysis to illustrate just how ludicrous the situation has become.
Another reason why the Constitution is invalid.

The United Kingdom law, 'An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia,'
remained in use after Australia achieved independence.

However, Clause 2 of the Act rules that, for the purposes of the Act all references to the
Queen lie in the Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

41

The Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 1921 was ratified on 15th January 1922. It brought
into existence the Irish Free State. In 1937 the Irish Free State became the Republic of
Eire. Ireland ceased to exist as a legal entity on 15th January 1922.

At that same time the sovereignty of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
ceased to exist. The establishment of the new sovereignty of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland was formalised through the United Kingdom
Parliament’s ‘ROYAL AND PARLIAMENTARY TITLES ACT 1927’.

The United Kingdom would constitute an international joke if, in 1999, it masqueraded as
still existing in the seventy year defunct Sovereignty of the Great Britain and Ireland!

But in 1999 every Australian Parliamentarian and Senator swears and subscribes an oath
to the Monarch in that same seventy year obsolete sovereignty!

If that were the limit of it then the situation might just be tolerable.

But it is not the limit.

The situation is much more serious.

As established, sovereignty over the Commonwealth of Australia lies with the Australian
people yet these same people remain subservient to a fundamental law, the Australian
Constitution, which makes no reference to these same people. That fundamental law,
the Constitution, exists in, and only recognises the sovereignty of the defunct nation,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland!

That this ludicrous scenario can have remained for so long is the result of a mass
deception which must rank with the greatest of political manipulations of all time. A
manipulation which could only be perpetuated by concealing and misrepresenting the
truth.

Such a distortion was evidenced when the High Court of Australia was recently
confronted with a question involving this very matter.

The Full Bench of that court ruled in ‘Sue v Hill’, at Paras. 53 to 59, that:

“The result cannot be that, because the present sovereign has never been Queen of Great
Britain and Ireland, the Australian Constitution miscarries for that reason... ”

ANNEXURE 30

To arrive at this decision the High Court relied on an unrelated and unreliable
pronouncement of one Lord Reid in the matter of the loss by Irish peers of their right to
elect representatives because, “Ireland as a whole no longer existed politically. ”

The contorted and tortured logic, (a process not infrequently entered into by the High
Court of Australia), applied in the High Court’s striving to uphold and maintain ‘current
practice’ to protect the political process, and hence the Government, which appoints
members to the Bench of that court, is nowhere more clearly illustrated than through the
three judgements referred to in this submission.

ANNEXURES 28, 30 & 32

It is clear that the court’s pronouncement in this matter is a nonsense. Lord Reid’s opinion
in the matter cited can not validate the Australian Constitution or any Government or
other structure, including the High Court, created under it.

42

What ever Lord Reid and the High Court might say, the Constitution still does not
recognise the ‘Queen of Australia’ , an Office which has no legal or executive power. Nor,
in terms of ‘black letter law’, does it recognise the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland ! - even taking into account the UK Parliament 'Royal and
Parliamentary Titles Act 1927’ which was effected after Australia separated itself from
the powers of that Parliament. Thus any outcome from this Act necessarily cannot validly
carry over to Australia. If it could, then ‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth would
have, at the time, been amended accordingly!

Whatever may be projected; the Australian Constitution remains part of a current Act of
British law subject only, to the defunct Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland.! And as such, under international law, has no legitimate application in the
independent sovereign nation, the Commonwealth of Australia. Clearly, on the
documented facts, the Australian Constitution DOES “miscarry”!

As an Act of colonial law the tenor of ‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of
Australia’ is one of subjugation . When the source of authority, the United
Kingdom Government, abandoned the direct effecting of its legitimate power this
role was assumed by the seven Australian governments. Each now maintain an
executive head whose power is not derived from either the United Kingdom
government or the Australian people.

4* •I' •!* 4- 4* 4* 4* 4* 4 s 4* 4* 4* 4» 4* 4* 4- 4* 4* 4* 4* 4« 4* 4*

*1* 'r T V *r T •? »(* 'I' v 'r T T *1* T •? T ^ ^ 4 * T

43

THE FINAL SOLUTION!

THE AUSTRALIA ACTS OF 1986

ANNEXURE 22

That the 1984 Letters Patent rectified nothing was directly acknowledged when, in 1986,
yet another attempt to disguise, what, if not before, was, by then, a hopeless legal
conglomeration.

This attempt was made via what have become known as the ‘Australia Acts 1986.’

These Acts, one enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and one enacted in
substantially the same terms, by the Parliament of Australia, each infringe sovereignty.
These Acts were not designated a Treaties and duly registered in accordance with the
appropriate Article of the Charter of the United Nations. Consequently they may not be
presented in any international forum.

The Act passed in Australia goes so far as to state that, contrary to the United Nations
Charter Article 2 Paragraphs 1 and 4, (as well as a number of resolutions), it can amend
or repeal Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. A sovereignty foreign to
Australia.

Apart from the fact that the Australia Act (Commonwealth) is offensive to international
law it can have no standing, even if the Australian Constitution could be ruled valid,
because it was passed by a Parliament and assented to by a Governor - General who was
appointed by the Queen of Australia, an Office not recognised by the Australian
Constitution under which the Act was created. That ‘honorary’ Governor-General, in turn,
commissioned the Prime Minister and his cabinet and invested the members of that same
Parliament that passed the 1986 Australia Act.

Wording of ‘1986 Australia Acts’ constitutes an admission and contains a
contradiction.

The wording contained in the ‘Australia Act’ constitutes a clear admission that colonial
law was, at least, up until 1986, being applied in Australia. At the same time that wording
also clearly indicates Australia’s sovereign, independent and federal nation status.

The following brief extract is offered as an example:

“AUSTRALIA ACT 1986

An Act to bring Constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the
States into conformity with the Status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a

sovereign, independent and federal nation . Termination of restrictions on

legislative powers of Parliaments of States

3. (1) The Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom known as the Colonial Laws
Validity Act 1865 shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this Act by
the Parliament of a State.

44

(2) No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act bv
the Parliament of a State shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant
to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of the Parliament
of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such Act , and
the powers of the Parliament of a State shall include the power to repeal or amend any
such Act , order , rule or regulation in so far as it is part of the law of the State. ”
(emphasis added)

These Acts were clearly an attempt to further disguise the use of British law in Australia
and effect the appearance of finally eliminating the influence of the United Kingdom
Government and use of Imperial law in Australia. They have failed to do so on at least
four counts,

1) they make no attempt to rescind the plethora of statute and unenacted British law that
the courts of Australia have relied, and continue to rely on in their decision making in
relation to the actions of ordinary Australian citizens as well as for the justification of
actions (particularly in the area of external powers and treaty making) of the Federal
Executive, the powers of which are not defined in the Australian Constitution.

2) as outlined, the very invalidity of processes used in the creation of these Acts renders
them invalid and thus when circumstances demand they may be ruled, in a court of law,
to be so, with the result that Imperial law may be applied exactly as it was before their
creation.

3) they do not repeal the Act of British law, 'An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of
Australia ’ the ninth clause of which remains the fundamental law of the Commonwealth
of Australia while the eight clause of which continues to define Australia as a colony and
the second clause defines the whole Act as functioning under the Monarchy of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

4) they fail to replace the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland as Executive Head of the Governments of the six Australian States, the peoples of
which constitute the legal entity the Commonwealth of Australia.

5) they exist alongside the Letters Patent issued to constitute the Office of Governor of
the separate Australian States, on 14th February 1986 under the title of Queen Elizabeth II
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and signed on behalf of the United Kingdom
Government by ‘OULTON’ and designated to come into operation at the same time as the
‘Australia Acts’. Thus the ‘Australia Acts’ did not inhibit the continuing interference in
Australia’s domestic affairs by the Monarch and the Government of the United Kingdom

jU n1> 4; 4* 4* 4* ^ 4» 4* ^ «X» 4* 4* 4* 4* *1* 4* 4* 4* 4* 4> 4* 4»

'l' T *1* T 'I* *T* "T* T *T* V T T T v V ^

45

THE COLONIAL STATES OF AUSTRALIA

DESPITE THE CREATION OF A * QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA’ AND THE
^AUSTRALIA ACTS’, THE GOVERNING OF THE AUSTRALIAN STATES
REMAINS ENTIRELY COLONIAL

A purely titular Queen of Australia rules over the Commonwealth while the Queen
of the United Kingdom invalidlv rules over the Australian States !

Concerned and informed citizens are asking is it possible?

The Governors of the Australian States receive their instructions by way of Letters Patent
from the Government of the United Kingdom under the name of the Queen of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . These Letters Patent were issued on,
14th February 1986, over the signature of Sir Anthony Derek Maxwell Oulton QC,
Permanent Secretary in the Office of the Lord Chancellor, and significantly, they were
designated to come into effect at the same time as the * Australia Acts’

ANNEXURE 23

New round of chicanery: British influence continues.

Thus, despite the Australia Acts a new ‘round’ of direct interference in the internal affairs
of Australia by the government of the United Kingdom commenced at exactly the same
time as the charade of finalising the extraction of Australia’s affairs from British
influence became effective.

It is pertinent to introduce here, an area which will be dealt with in detail later. That is
that the Australian Court system has become a protector of this invalid system of
government and the actions of those individuals and agencies that also would have it
maintained.

In a judgement, in Sue v Hill , handed down as late as June 23rd 1999 the full bench of the
High Court of Australia it was stated at Paragraph 96,

“The point of immediate significance is that the circumstance that the same Monarch
exercises regal functions under the constitutional arrangements in the United Kingdom
and Australia does not deny the proposition that the United Kingdom is a foreign power
within the meaning of S44(i) of the Constitution. Australia and the United Kingdom have
their own laws as to nationality so that their citizens owe different allegiances . The
United Kingdom has a distinct legal personality and its exercises of sovereignty, for
example in entering military alliances, participating in armed conflicts and acceding to
treaties such as the Treaty of Rome, themselves have no legal consequences for this
country. Nor, as we have sought demonstrate in Section III, does the United Kingdom
exercise any function with respect to the Governmental structures of the
Common wealth or States. ” (emphasis added) AN N EXU RE 30

From the statements and illustrations already presented this is not an accurate description
of the situation. Clearly the Constitutions of both the States and the Commonwealth

46

operate in the Monarchy of the United Kingdom and the Offices of the separate State
Governors are constituted directly by the British Government.

It is significant to report that as this submission was in preparation all six State Governors
had persistently failed to provide details relating to the execution of their Office. As a last
resort formal requests have had to be issued under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

An answer to a question supplied by the Office of the Australian Attorney-General on the
21st of October 1997 contrasts markedly with High Court judgement cited above: “The
Queen’s role as Queen of Australia is, in legal terms, distinct from her role as Queen of
the United Kingdom (as it is distinct from her role as Queen of Canada or of New
Zealand. The Queen of Australia, acts on the advice of the Australian Government. ”
And, so by simple deduction the Queen of the United Kingdom acts on the advice of the
Government of the United Kingdom! ANNEXURE. 10

“The incongruous nature of a position in which the ‘Colonial Laws Validity Act (UK)
1856’ still applies to the States but not the Commonwealth was well summed up by Sir
Owen Dixon in 1936. Speaking to the Australian Legal Convention in 1936 he referred to
the “Illogical course ” which had been followed in the application of the statute ” (Statute
of Westminster 1931. This same illogicality exists in relation to the Australia Acts 1986)
“to Australia. As he asserted, this course meant that the State and federal legislatures
had been treated “as if they operated in different countries” (Full text of speech
contained in ‘Jesting Pilate’ (1965), p.82) More recently, Professor Geoffrey Sawer has
described the position more vehemently as a “grotesque constitutional situation ”. As
he went on, a situation was created in which “the Australian federal government could
enjoy the fullest degree of national autonomy, while the States of the federation
remained in a legal status of dependent colonialism. ” ( G. Sawer, ‘Australian Federal
Politics and Law (Vol. 2) 1929-1949’ 1963 , p.33)

“The national government's links to Britain are now essentially in an independent
relationship with the Sovereign. The Sovereign is the Queen of Australia, in a capacity
separate from her relationship to the British polity. Side by side with this, however, the
legal panoply of imperial dominion remains embedded in the constitutional workings
of the Australian States.” (Alex Castles ‘An Australian Legal History’ 1992, p 418.)

The Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973, was specifically designed to remove the ‘Queen of
the United Kingdom’ in Australia law. (a process which effectively obliterated the
Australian Constitution, see pp. 32,33,34) while at the same time creating the ‘Queen of
Australia’ to ‘rule’ over the Commonwealth. Despite this action the Monarchy of the
United Kingdom, together with the influence of the United Kingdom Government,
remains firmly entrenched in the governing of the States .

Office of State Governors constituted by United Kingdom Government.

That this is manifestly so is illustrated through an examination of the current instruction
by way of Letters Patent to State Governors which were issued in 1986 under:
“ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great

47

Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of
the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

These instructions were issued

“ & Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent. Witness
Ourself at Westminster the fourteenth day of February in the Thirty-Fifth year of Our
Reign. By Warrant under The Queen's Sign Manual.

OULTON

ANNEXURE 23

State Governor’s Letters Patent signed by British citizen in the employ of United
Kingdom Government

OULTON is one Sir Anthony Derek Maxwell Oulton, GCB 1989 (KCB 1984; CB 1979);
QC 1985 Ma PhD; Permanent Secretary, Lord Chancellor’s Office, and Clerk of the
Crown in Chancery, 1982-89; barrister-at-law; Life Fellow, Magdalene College,
Cambridge since 1995.

Thus on the 14th February 1986, some two years after the Commonwealth Government
attempted to removed reference to the UK Monarchy from the Commonwealth, the
United Kingdom Government provided instructions, by way of Letters Patent, to
Governors of Australian States (all non British citizens) the federated peoples of which
comprise the Commonwealth of Australia.

As far as can be ascertained no new Letters Patent have been issued.

These current instructions are being used by Australian citizens as their source of
authority to commission the Premier and Cabinet Ministers and invest members (all
Australian Citizens) in the Parliaments of the States. In addition the Governors use their
British authority to commission magistrates, judges and police (also non British Citizens)
with powers to impose what can properly be described as United Kingdom law on
Australian Citizens within the sovereign territory of Australia. .

But the situation possess yet another dimension. “The monarch in the United Kingdom is
a constitutional monarch who occupies the throne by virtue of an Act of the Parliament
and bears a title conferred by that Act. ” Sir Kenneth M. McCaw QC and Attorney-
General (1965) of New South Wales at page, 15, ‘People Verses Power (ISBN 0 03
900161 X) The United Kingdom Legislature consists of the trilogy, the ‘House of
Commons’, the ‘House of Lords’ and the ‘Queen in Parliament’. "... As Head of State,
the Queen must remain politically neutral, since her Government will be formed from
whichever party can command a majority in the House of Commons. The Queen Herself
is part of the legislature (as The Queen in Parliament she approves legislation), and

technically she cannot vote .” (official Royal UK Govt, website, emphasis added)

ANNEXURE 23 The Queen is a
composite part of the legislature and since the Act of Settlement 1701 has not
enjoyed separate status as an independent legal entity. Therefore the issuing
authority of these Letters Patent is clearly definable as the United Kingdom
Parliament.

48

The Monarch and the Monarchs representatives (State Govemors/Govemor-General) are
limited by the current legislative power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which,
under domestic and international law, excludes the right to bestow the power of assent to
bills within the sovereign territory of the Commonwealth of Australia, a Member State of
the United Nations, nor can this power of assent be bestowed by a government which is
itself subordinate to Clause 9 of the Constitution Act which is current domestic
legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Power of assent is a ‘sovereign power’ held by the Australian people alone. Even they
cannot bestow this power upon a citizen who is subordinate to the British Parliament. A
nation’s sovereignty is not negotiable under domestic and international law!

So it is that these Letters Patent were signed in contravention of both United Kingdom
and international law (UN Charter Article 2 Paragraphs 1 and 4 which were reinforced by
Resolutions 2131 of 1966 and 2625 of 1970).

But there exists yet another anomaly. Even if their creation could be declared valid, under
both British and international law, authority via such Letters Patent can only be issued to
a British Subject for application in relation to matters involving British Subjects and then
only for application in the United Kingdom and/or her dependencies. Australia is not a
dependency of the United Kingdom and Australian citizens are not British subjects. The
Governor-General and the State Governors are also not British subjects.

The Letters Patent of 14th February 1986, issued from the United Kingdom, by the
United Kingdom Government via the Queen of the United Kingdom are being used
against both United Kingdom and International law, by non-British subjects to
exert power over Australian citizens within the sovereign territory of the sovereign
nation the Commonwealth of Australia, A Member State of the United Nations .

a

49

POLITICAL PROCESS CORRUPTED
Thus it must be concluded that:

because of the continuing involvement of the government of the United Kingdom in
the affairs of Australia the Australian Political and Judicial system has been
corrupted

Because the Australian Constitution is British law it follows that all laws deriving from it
are properly British laws.

In addition the United Kingdom Government also continues to permit other United
Kingdom statute as well as British unenacted law (common law) to be applied to citizens
residing in Australian territory.

A Governor-General appointed by the purely titular ‘Queen of Australia’ clearly has no
executive power or legal position in relation to the fundamental law of Australia, the
Commonwealth Constitution, which is, as confirmed, an Act of UK law that only
recognises the Monarch in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

So, even if it is possible to establish that law created in Australia after the events of
1919/1920 is valid, it will surely be more difficult to establish the validity of law created
after Australia become a foundation Member State of the United Nations in 1945. But it
is quite impossible to establish that law created in Australia after the 1973 creation of a
‘Queen of Australia’ has, under international law, any validity whatsoever.

It is evident that, at the federal level, concerted attempts have been made to create a
facade to conceal the truth that Australia, since the events of 1919/1920, has effectively
been governed as a colony of the United Kingdom.

At the level of the States it is apparent that there exists an untidy state of confusion with
differing approaches being made to camouflage that the State Governments quite clearly
remain British colonial.

Recent failure by State Governors to present public documents pertaining to the
Office they occupy flags the development of a potentially dangerous situation.**

One State Governor has provided a copy of his letter of Commission and has been
prepared to reveal that it is neither signed nor sealed. He also provided a certified copy of
the United Kingdom Letters Patent Constituting his Office.

Another State Governor has revealed that his Letter of Commission was issued by the
‘Queen of Australia’ while at the same time providing Letters Patent issued by the United
Kingdom Government with an added inscription attempting justification gained via the
1986 Australia Acts.

A third and forth Governor has refused to supply any documentation claiming that the
Office of Governor is beyond examination.

Despite intense questioning no revelation has been forthcoming from the two remaining
State Governors.. ANNEXURE 24

Since the people have not been consulted in relation to any change that may have been
effected it is reasonable to assume that State Governors currently occupy Office

50

demonstrably without authority. Should this prove to be so an extremely serious and
potentially dangerous situation will have been permitted to develop.

Situation does not serve the best interests of the Australian people

Because the necessary measures to bridge the legal void, created when the
Commonwealth of Australia achieved sovereign independent nation status, were not put
in place the situation has remained such that powerful foreign political and commercial
interests could continue to influence the State and Federal Governments of the
Commonwealth of Australia in relation to all or selected affairs, both domestic and
international.

Clearly such a situation does not serve the best interests of the Commonwealth of
Australia, that is, the sovereign Australian people.

Repeated and concerted efforts to conceal the fundamental invalidity of the
politico/legal system functioning in Australia has manifestly prohibited the
Australian people from exercising their right to self dertimination. There exists a
perception that the situation has degenerated to a level which may precipitate civil
unrest. Because of this, it is felt that urgent corrective measures are now obligatory.

***************************

51

BRITISH STATUTE AND UNENACTED LAW

The present corrupt system of government in Australia has developed and evolved
as a result of a failure to repeal colonial law and establish a citizen based foundation
for the politico/iudicial system operating in Australia.

United Kingdom Government Offending International Law.

Australia continues, either 79 years after achieving and being guaranteed independent,
sovereign nation status through becoming a Member Nation of the League of Nations, or
at the very least some 54 years after being guaranteed sovereign independent nation status
under the Charter of the United Nations, to be governed by a parliament and administered
by a bureaucracy which is demonstrably the knowing servant of the Parliament of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Australian people continue to
be governed under exactly the same law that was effected on them by the colonial power,
the United Kingdom in 1900.

This being the case, it becomes quite arguable that Great Britain, by not divorcing itself
from the affairs of Australia by repealing the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act (UK) 1900, is committing an act of political aggression and that those individual
Australian citizens continuing to be involved in the creation and the administration of
what are, in fact British laws, are committing acts of treason against the sovereign nation
of Commonwealth of Australia. This is reinforce by the fact that all Senators and Federal
Members of Parliament are required to swear and subscribe an oath of allegiance to the
Monarch in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. ANN EXU RE 31

United Kingdom law as it is currently being applied within the sovereign territory of
the Commonwealth of Australia is largely devoid of civil rights.

It is apparent that because of the actions within some areas of the Government
tension within sections of the community have reached an intensity which needs to
be seen as serious.

Application of British statute and unenacted law in Australia

Because the Government of the Australian States remain entirely colonial with the Queen
of the United Kingdom or her Instructed Governor acting as Executive Head of the
respective Governments all aspects of British law may be effected in the States.

This results in Australian citizens being governed by, and subjected to, a judicial system
which is not of their making.

British Statute law in Australia

Apart from the fact that the Commonwaelth Constitution remains Statute law of the
United Kingdom many other Acts of British law continue to have application in the
States of the Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia.

52

Attempts have been made in the States of Victoria and New South Wales to restrict and
control the application of British Statute law within those two States.

Alex C. Castles, Professor of Law in the University of Adelaide succinctly describes the
situation in his book, 4 An Australian Legal History’ (1982, edition 1992, ISBN 0 455
19609 5)

" For more than 50 years the 1922 Act provided the basis for the operation of received
British statutes in Victoria. Then in two Acts passed in 1980 the Victorian Parliament
updated the earlier legislation andfinally made local legislation the sole authority for the
continuation of all received British statutory provisions in the State. The Imperial Acts
Applications Act, 1980, partly repealed the 1922 legislation. Essentially, the 1980 Act
repealed all received British statutes ” (Which, no doubt, is an action that is offensive to
both British and international law) "except where they were retained in force by this
statute and the remaining provisions of the Act of 1922. In Part 2 of the 1980 Act,
provisions from thirteen British Acts, dating back to the thirteenth century were
transcribed and made part of Victoria’s own statute law. The British Acts from which
these provisions are taken include a re-enacted clause from Magna Carta, the Bill of
Rights, the Statute of Monopolies and the Royal Marriages Act. Just prior to the passing
of this Act, the Imperial law and Re-enactment Act, 1980 provided for the inclusion of
some other British statutory law into other State enactments such as the Crimes Act, and
the Property Law Act ”

State Governments chooses, at will, to selectively apply Imperial law!

"For the future, s. 6 of the Imperial Acts Application Act, 1980, made it possible for the
Governor-in-Council to reinstate British legislation if this might be deemed necessary.”
( Again such a provision would seems to be absurd . And the Question must be asked.
Under what provision of British and international law may a State of the federal sovereign
and independent nation of Australia, selectively choose laws of another sovereign nation,
the United Kingdom, to inflict on Australian citizens?)

The passing of these two Victorian Acts has now brought the southern State more closely
into accord with the provision made for the continuation of received British statutes in
the New South Wales Imperial Acts Application Act, 1969. This Act went further than the
Victorian legislation of 1922 in making no provision for the continued operation of the
old principles to determine the application of some British statutes. For the future, as
now in Victoria under the 1980 legislation, all British received statutes in New South
Wales were henceforth to apply under the authority of the State legislature. Section 5 of
the New South Wales Act repealed a number of British statutes which were presumed
to be part of received law there. But in some instances substitute provisions in part III
of the Act. At the same time, it was laid down that these re-enactment provisions were
not to have primacy over other State statutes. In addition, s. 6 of the Act preserved a
group of received British statutes where it was considered impractical to enact
substitute provision. These include “Constitutional Enactments”, such as the Petition of
Right and the Bill of Rights.

53

As in Victoria, in the case of special contingencies such as the accidental omission of
a British law from the terms of the 1969 Act, the operation of British statutory
provisions may be revived. This, as the Act lays it down, can be done through
proclamation made by the State Governor. ” (pp, 443 and 444, emphasis added)

(It appears the governments of the States of South Australia, Queensland, Western
Australia and Tasmania have not enacted legislation to define how British Acts may be
applied in those States.)

When examined in conjunction with international law (e.g. UN Charter Article 2,
Paragraphs 2 and 4 along with various resolutions) these happenings are extraordinary.

When considered in conjunction with the Immigration and Asylum Act 1971 (UK)
which removed from Australian citizens all rights under United Kingdom law a situation
has been created which has overtones of a form of ‘legal slavery’.

British law can be applied at will, and is being so applied, to Australian citizens. But
these same citizens, being denied British citizenship, in turn, have no general
entitlements under it!

This is offered as an illustration that those assuming the power to make and inflict
laws for application to Australian citizens do so in the full knowledge that Australia
continues to be a concealed colony of the United Kingdom. These same people are, in
fact, definable as agents serving, at least, in the legal sense, the interests of a foreign
power. After all. State Governors’ current Letters Patent were issued in 1986 under the
Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland through the
Office of the United Kingdom Government’s Lord Chancellor

With the authority of these instructions the Governors, in turn, commission individuals to
form governments, invest that Government’s Ministers as well as commission Senior
Bureaucrats, Defence personnel, Magistrates, Judges and Police.

The situation in relation to unenacted English Law in Australian Courts

The continued infliction of British law on Australian citizens is not restricted to the
Commonwealth Constitution and other British Statute law. The complete transposition of
the British system of the “law of Judges”, the ‘common law’ or un-enacted law is
operational in Australia. In many aspects this form of law is even more archaic than that
presently applying in the United Kingdom.

Again the following quotes are taken from ‘An Australian Legal History’ (ISBN 0 455
19609 5, 1982, edition 1992) by Alex C. Castles, Professor of law University of Adelaide,
who has, in this book, succinctly described the situation.

“No special provision was made in the Commonwealth Constitution for the operation of
English unenacted law in relation to the national government established in 1901 .” (After
all Australia remained a colony and so there was no obvious need for this!) “Besides,

54

many areas traditionally regulated by English unenacted law remained under the
authority of the States (As it does even today) "But the use of unenacted English law
has nevertheless sometimes come to be regarded as a source of law which may help in
some circumstances to explain and regulate the working of asvects of authority provided
for under the Commonwealth Constitution. This has been notably so in relation to the
powers exercised bv the executive branch of government under the Constitution. But the
use of unenacted law in relation to the powers and organs of the national government has
not been limited to this. The most visible use of English unenacted law in Australia has
been in the courts . ” ( p, 493 emphasis added)

Unenacted Law considered as no longer suitable for application in Britain continues
to be applied unaltered in Australia

“The received, unenacted law also shared another important characteristic with
transplanted statutes. If it was receivable at the time designated for “settlement " its
continued operation as part of Australian law was unaffected by later British statutes
unless these applied by paramount force. Thus, as principles of unenacted law were
modified or excluded altogether in their operation in England by ordinary British statutes
this had no legal effect in Australia. The received unenacted principles continued to
operate in this country as before. An illustration of the application of this rule is to be
seen in 1979 in State Government Insurance Commission (S.A.) v. TrigwelL The case
involved the continued operation in South Australia of a common law rule which
prevented the occupiers of land being made liable for damages inflicted when domestic
animals strayed onto public highways. In England this common law principle has been
abolished by statute. But the High Court (Australian) indicated the British enactment had
no relevance to the continued operation of this common law rule in Australia.

As a consequence of this , there are many principles of English unenacted law which are
still applied in parts of Australia which are now unused in England. In those States which
do not have Criminal Codes, for example, elements of the common law defining offence
such as theft and homicide are still applied although they have been abolished in
England by statute. TrigweWs case evidences how principles of the law of torts may still
be based on unenacted law which has been found wanting in its operation in England and
elsewhere. In the same context, parts of the law on defamation in Australia in some States
are based on common law rules which have been modified by statute law in Britain.
Sometimes principles of unenacted law which may seem quite out of place in the twentieth
century may be found to be enforceable in Australia although they have been wholly or
partly cast into oblivion in England for many years. This was shown in the decision of the
High Court in Dugan v. Mirror Newspapers Ltd, in 1978. There a prisoner in a New
South Wales goal sought to bring an action in defamation against a Sydney newspaper.

In 1950 he had been sentenced to death before the abolition of capital punishment in that
State. The sentence had been commuted subsequently to one of life imprisonment.
Nevertheless, because the ancient English common law principle on attainder was held to
be still operative in the State, the prisoner was not permitted to seek redress for allegedly
libellous material which had been published about him. Under this principle in its old

55

form a person convicted of treason or felonies punishable by death lost his civil rights.
The injustice of this rule applying in a blanket form was acknowledged in Britain as long
ago as 1870. But as no effective steps had been taken to abolish this rule by statute in
New South Wales only one of the seven justices of the High Court was prepared to
declare that the common law principle should no longer be enforced.

Despite the fact that there may be strong acknowledgment that principles like those
upheld in Dugan may seem no longer to be fair or efficacious the decisions in this and
other cases show tha t Australian Courts have a marked reluctance to alter received
unenacted law by judicial action. ” .

... “Down to the present ; the application of these principles in Australian courts have
often maintained a firm and until recent times frequently a slavish adherence to the ways
in which this law has continued to be applied by English judges. For many years
Australian courts in fact adopted a deliberate policy of working to maintain uniformity
between English and Australian judicial decisions in their dealings with unenacted law. ”
(p, 502 and 503 emphasis added)

When Australian courts are faced with a matrix of facts which do not align with a statute
or codified law, be it a British or a nominally Australian statute, the judiciary will delve
into the thousands of pages of references relating to British unenacted law, for a basis and
a justification for a finding. “In practice Australian courts normally have shown little
inclination to examine closely the suitability of unenacted law to Australian conditions ”.
So it is that un-enacted British law may “be held to be lying dormant ready to be applied
at some time in the future. ” (p, 507 and 506).

“ As the Privy Council” (of the Government of the United Kingdom) “ summed up its
position, ‘as the population and wealth of the colony increase, many rules and
principles of English law, which were unsuitable to its infancy, will gradually be
attracted to it,

“In Trigwell, for example, Chief Justice Barwick declared that the common law did not
seem to be changeable by judicial action if the law had been declared by a court of high
authority and its declaration of the law at the time was correct. As the Chief justice went
on to affirm, the unenacted law was not to be modified or displaced “because the court
may think that changes in the society make or tend to make that declaration of the
common law in appropriate to the times. ” (p, 503 emphasis added)

“ In Dugan, Gibbs J. followed an approach along basically the same lines. He claimed
that it would be wrong for courts to reject the application of unenacted principles
because they might seem to be ‘out of harmony with modern notions'. To do otherwise, so
he went on, could lead to ‘a dangerous uncertainty as to matters of fundamental
principle’”, (p, 504)

“While there has been no general acceptance that there is a common law of the
Commonwealth there has, nevertheless, been clear acknowledgment that features of

56

unenacted law can be used in determining the nature of some Commonwealth powers.

. The exercise of the executive powers of the Commonwealth under s. 61 of the

Commonwealth Constitution has also been construed at times in the light of the legal
position of the Crown at common law. Thus, for example, the legal status within
Australia of relationships, including treaties, entered into between the executive arm of
the Commonwealth and other countries has been regulated by common law principles. ”
(P, 513)

Since the ‘executive Arm of the Commonwealth’ is composed of individuals representing
narrow party political and commercial and economic interests it may be assumed that
those sharing power use whatever is conveniently available to permit them to continue to
successfully exert that claimed power.

The Privy Council of the United Kingdom was, until 1986, Australia’s final court of
appeal (and arguably remains so in State matters) the High Court of Australia has
increasingly been called on to adjudicate in matters deriving from un-enacted law.

“With these developments the High Court has moved close to becoming the ultimate
arbitrator of unenacted law in Australia. As such, in fulfilling its constitutionally -
ordained role as the final court of appeal from the legal systems of the States and
Territories (This is a mis-statement for British law makers insisted in 1900 that it be the
Privy Council of the United Kingdom that filled this role) it is in a position to apply a
uniform approach to the application of unenacted (British) law in Australia. ”

Thus is it illustrated that Australian politicians, justices and academics have failed to
make what could be described as a meaningful attempt to provide a system of law which
is suitable for application within an Australia which has achieved full international
personality.

It is clear that despite the need to comply with the demands of international law
those assuming positions of authority have chosen to ignore their obligation to act in
the interests of the sovereign people of Australia choosing instead to continue to
apply British colonial law to their fellow countrymen.

'k-jt'k’kJejejeJcjeieje’k’klcje’tck'jffcje-k’kjc-jfjc-jc

57

AUSTRALIANS VICTIMISED and EXECUTED

Australian citizens victimised and executed through the application of British law
within the sovereign territory of Australia.

The behaviour of every person residing in Australia is constantly dominated by rules,
regulations and laws which are rightly definable as British colonial.

The system as it has evolved has become increasingly authoritarian. Individuals lacking
access to any semblance of entrenched civil rights, find themselves being victimised and
intimidated, not only by their Parliaments but by bureaucrats, ‘inspectors’, police, in fact
any individual involved in administering regulations generated from within the various
administrative departments of government. The allegation of offences and the issuing of
substantial ‘on the spot fines’ by the lowliest of government officials has become
common place. While the victim usually has nominal access to contest such incidents
through court processes the in-built difficulties render it unfeasible to pursue such a
course. And in any event, a pragmatist will be aware that it has proven virtually
impossible to achieve a result which favours an appellant

The courts, at all levels, being the products of these parliaments, afford little solace for
the individual since they have ruled on numerous occasions that it is not their role to act
as legislative bodies but rather to interpret the laws that parliaments have made. And if
laws defining human rights have not been made then those rights may be, and have been,
denied by the courts even though they may be clearly set down in one or more
international statutes. However in an ad hoc manner magistrates occasionally chose to
examine British common law to resolve an issue.

Professor George Williams in the conclusion to his chapter on Human Rights in Australia
in his book ‘ Human Rights Under the Australian Constitution ’ states:

“In Australia, Human rights are protected at a number of different levels. This loose and
sometimes overlapping web of protection offers significant support for civil liberties and
may act as an important legal and political barrier to a government wishing to breach
fundamental rights. However, the regime outlined above is inadequate. The protection
offered is ad hoc and of limited scope. Brian Bur dekin, a former Australian Human
Rights Commissioner, commented in 1994 that: *It is beyond question that our current
legal system is seriously inadequate in protecting many of the rights of the most
vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in our community. ”

The scheme of protection is also unsatisfactory because it is largely unknown. There is
little knowledge among Australians of their legal rights. Such Rights are not readily
accessible and thus fail to serve the important educative or symbolic function that
should underline their operation. Ultimately, they do not effectively protect
fundamental freedoms from being abrogated by Australian parliaments. Although an
approach based on liberalism might suggest that Australians have largely been free,
republican theory suggests otherwise. Australians remain subject to the dominion of
their parliaments because, at any time, their representatives could choose to arbitrarily

58

interfere with individual liberty . The Australian people are subjugated by this potential.
There is a need for greater protection entrenched in a statutory or constitutional Bill of
Rights.” (‘Human Rights Under the Australian Constitution’ George Williams, Oxford
University Press, 1999, pp. 23 & 24)

Bill of Rights defeated

In 1973 an attempt to bring about a greater protection for fundamental rights in the form
of a statutory Bill of Rights which sought to implement the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights 1966 in Australia and would have protected a range of rights
such as, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, the right to marry and found a
family and individual privacy. This Bill met with strong opposition and lapsed. Further
attempts were made through ‘watered down’ Bills in 1983, 1985 and 1986 without
success.

As a consequence courts continue to deny citizens access to basic human rights as set out
in international Covenants, even ignoring the outcomes of the Namibia findings of the
UN. And so it is for the greater part that the courts continue to look to the British system
of common law in matters involving human rights. And of this Sir Anthony Mason,
former Chief Justice of the High Court has remarked “..the common law system ,
supplemented as it presently is by statutes designed to protect particular rights, does not
protect fundamental rights as comprehensively as do constitutional guarantees and
conventions on human rights ... The common law is not as invincible a safeguard against
violations of fundamental rights as it was once thought to be. ” (ibid, p 258).

Citizens executed as a result of British law being applied in sovereign Australia

Historically it has been the courts which are the final arbitrators responsible for the
application of the law. It is within those ultra-conservative places that British law has
been applied even to the ultimate penalty of death by hanging.

Of the many people who have paid this maximum penalty for offending British law in
their own country, Australia, there is, perhaps, non so famous as Ronald Ryan.

“Ronald Ryan had committed the ultimate crime in the course of his escape, he had killed
a warder ... or had he? The question arose at his trial and it cast a long shadow of
doubt about the last man hanged in Australia. ” (‘Crimes that shocked Australia’ Alan
Sharpe ISBN 1-863090-18-5, p 348)

Ryan insisted that he had not fired the shot that killed the warder. It seemed likely that the
warder had in fact died as the result of a shot fired by a second warder. While found
guilty by jury trial, there remains grave doubt that no jurist could help but be influenced
by the massive media coverage awarded to the circumstances of Ryan’s escape.
Nevertheless he was sentenced to death. Those of the public who were opposed to capital
punishment worked tirelessly to save Ryan from the gallows. However, “While crowds
gathered outside the gates of Pentridge on February 3, 1967, Ronald Ryan became the
last man to be hanged in Australia . He was buried in an unmarked grave and, as is

59

the custom, (a British custom) his family were refused permission to attend the burial. ”
(ibid p, 352)

Many studies into, and so much has been written in condemnation of this incident in
Australian history that it seems unlikely that another person will ever be executed under
British law in Australia.

The case of the last woman to be hanged under British law in Australia was surrounded
by equally controversial issues. She was Jean Lee, an attractive 31 year old

woman . who along with her lover, Robert Clayton and their friend Norman Andrews

had been found guilty of the murder of a 73 year old SP bookmaker ... in 1949. ..
Subverting every code in the conservative post-war female identity, Jean Lee did not fit
the mould. She was husbandless and supported herself and her child through work and
lovers, eventually spiralling into prostitution and petty crime.... She went to the gallows
despite severe doubts about what part she played in the murder, the highly questionable
police interrogation procedures of the time, and the controversial High Court and Privy
Council decisions. Undoubtedly, however, she died as a warning to other women of the
perilous consequences of deviating from the socially approved path offemininity. She had
to be sedated and held upright on a chair before being plunged to her death on the 19th
February 1951.” (‘Last Woman Hanged In Australia’, Random House 1997, ISBN
0091834422).

While this extract is somewhat colourful in its language one should not be distracted from
the fact that, in this case, British law right up to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom
House of Lords was applied in the destruction of an Australian woman’s life within the
sovereign territory of Australia. And that this occurred 50 years after Australia ceased to
be a colony of the United Kingdom and 6 years after both countries became members of
the United Nations. Again the controversy surrounding this incident seems to have
ensured that no other female will ever be executed in Australia.

However, others since this time have been subjected to the most severe of penalties often
after conviction on purely circumstantial evidence and in the face of sensational media
coverage. Most conspicuous amongst these is the case of Lindy Chamberlain who in 1983
was convicted of the murder of her infant child. She was duly sentenced to life
imprisonment with hard labour. Despite massive public displays of dissatisfaction with
the processes involved and the apparent mis-application of justice, the appeals for
clemency and pleas for mercy the mother of three children remained incarcerated. In late
1985 an application for an inquiry into the Chamberlain case was rejected with a
statement from the Northern Territory Solicitor-General, "..the verdict against them can
never be set aside”. Three months later, on the production of a piece of the infants
clothing, Lindy Chamberlain was abruptly released from prison.

Such was the sustained public outcry in relation to the conduct of the Police and the
Justice Department of the Northern Territory that in May of 1986 an inquiry opened. Ten
months later the published report stated that "if all the evidence presented at the inquiry

60

had been given at the trial then the judge would have been obliged to have acquitted the
Chamberlains. ”(‘Crimes That Shocked Australia’ p, 407)

Lindy Chamberlain, already freed, was found to be innocent and pardoned (for a crime
she had never committed!) in 1987.

No system of law and order is fault free. However, the continued application of an
outmoded colonial system which is devoid of civil rights and which is rightly the
property of the foreign power, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, is totally and thoroughly offensive to the code of human rights, when
applied to residents in an independent Australia. To be punished for offending the
agreed laws of a country is one thing. To be punished in ones own country for
offending the laws of foreign land is another. For an Australian citizen be punished
in Australia after being falsely accused of offending British laws is grotesque in the
extreme.

•k'k-k'k'k-klck-k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k-k'k'k’k’k'k'k'k'k-k

61

BRIDGING THE LEGAL VOIP

Australian citizens argue that the political and legal system operating in Australia is
offensive not only to international law but also to itself.

Complaints to individuals claiming to hold positions of power ignored

Over a protracted period, direct representation on the matters relating to the invalidity of
the political and legal system operating in Australia has been made to Prime Ministers,
Attorney-Generals, Ministers, elected representatives, heads of departments and other
senior bureaucrats, as well as Magistrates and Judges at a federal level over the life of two
separate federal governments.

In addition, representation has been made to State (Provincial) Premiers, Ministers,
Parliamentary members, Magistrates, Judges, Public Servants and Police

Since no individual claiming the authority to occupy these positions of power has either
acknowledged that a problem exists, or has overtly taken action to correct the situation,
individual citizens have chosen to argue the matter through the court system as it exists.

Judiciary required to rule that due to change in sovereignty British colonial law can
no longer be inflicted on Australian citizens.

Through the presentation of the facts of history, fully supported by documentation, courts
at all levels have been asked to find that Australia is an independent sovereign nation
being governed by laws that are rightly the property of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom.

This has been done in the belief that the judiciary, being independent of the Federal and
the six State governments were in a position which obliged them to find that the events of
history support the simple scenario that the Commonwealth of Australia has undergone a
change of sovereignty from the Monarchy of the United Kingdom to the sovereignty of
the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia and that this occurred not later than the
26th June 1945 when Australia became a foundation Member State of the United Nations.
And that paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the Charter guarantees the political independence of
Australia, a Member State of the United Nations.

And that because a change in sovereignty is necessarily accompanied by an interruption in
legal continuity the fundamental law of Australia, the Constitution, being the 9th clause
of an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in 1900, together with its 8
antecedent clauses, no longer has application in the governing of the sovereign people of
Australia.

And that it then follows that since gaining independence, all laws reliant on and
originating through the United Kingdom law, the Constitution, are definable as British
law and as such may not be effected on Australian citizens resident in internationally
recognised Australian territory.

62

‘Testing’ of the validity of the system has occurred across the nation .

Appeal before the Master of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

ANNEXURE 26

The Master of the Supreme Court of the Australia Capital Territory, after hearing
argument to the contrary, ruled that British Colonial law can continue to be applied to
Australian citizens in Australia and its territories. The content of his concluding statement
reveals what seems to have become a colluded response to protect and thus perpetuate an
invalid and increasingly corrupt legal system.

“But there is a further, and perhaps more fundamental reason why I must strike out this
appeal Mr Skelton’s argument is premised on the invalidity of the Constitution - it is a
challenge to the very order under which this Court derives its authority (Spratt v Hermes
(1965) 114 CRL 226). A similar fundamental challenge to the source of sovereign
authority of this country was rejected by Mason CJ in Coe v Commonwealth (1993) 118
ALR 193 at 200 citing Jacobs J in an earlier challenge (Coe v Commonwealth (1979) 24
ALR 118) where His Honour said of paragraphs in a statement of claim challenging the
sovereignty of Australia that they were "... not matters of municipal law but the law of
nations and are not cognisable in a court exercising jurisdiction under that sovereignty
which is sought to be challenged”

Argument put to State Magistrates Court and Appealed to State Supreme Court

The Annexures presented in support of this section are offered as detailed illustrations of
the refusal on the part of the Courts to even consider that a politico/legal defect exists. It
will be observed that the judgements in no way reflect the evidence presented.

In the State of South Australia the police prosecutor and the court were advised prior to a
hearing that they would be asked to identify the source of the authority that they were
using to require the defendant to present himself before the Court. They were also
preliminarily presented with an outline of the Constitutional argument that was to be
presented.

After refusing to state the source of his authority the presiding Magistrate further refused
to hear the argument and so it was presented to the Court in a fully written and
documented form. ANNEXURE 27

Without considering that which was presented he proceeded to find, convict and penalise
the defendant. It seems no record of proceedings was retained.

On appeal, the Supreme Court Judge also considered it unnecessary to identify the
ultimate source of the authority he was claiming to exert. Citing instead Acts of the
Parliament that he was aware the defence was to maintain existed without validity. The
appeal to this court was presented by way of a fully documented affidavit. This included
the written argument presented to the Magistrate.

63

The Judge prohibited the Crown Solicitor from addressing the Court thus protecting the
‘Crown’ from having to justify its operation in sovereign Australia by way of cross
examination by the appellant.

The Judge proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that he simply did "not accede
to any of the (Appellants) arguments The Judge failed to address any of those
arguments or issues presented to him.

A slightly more refined presentation, by way of affidavit, was in a second instance,
presented as a defence in another Magistrates Court in the same State. On this occasion
the affidavit was served personally on the arresting policeman. Police Prosecutor and the
Court Registrar. This was accompanied, in each instance, by a statement that as servants
of a foreign power they were acting as individuals and that as such possessed no
indemnity if their actions should be challenged at a later date.

The presiding Magistrate questioned the defendant at length and then ruled that nothing
has occurred to prevent the application of "legislation and Letters Patent from the
Parliament and Sovereign of the United Kingdom " The Magistrate then proceeded to
hear the prosecutor, find, and penalise the defendant.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of South Australia the presiding judge failed to address
the substance of the arguments presented. Instead he proceeded to denigrate the appellant.

In summation he stated, "In short, the arguments have all the hallmarks of a latter day
Mr Justice Boothby. Since the enactment of the Colonial Lam Validity Act in 1865,
nothing has occurred which adversely affects the constitutional or legislative competence
of the Parliament of South Australia to make laws relating to road traffic and their
enforcement in the courts of this State. "

The appeal was dismissed.

Such decisions ignore the record of all of the historical events as they were presented to
the respective courts and as they have been presented within the earlier part of this paper.

Virtually identical reactions have resulted when the Constitutional arguments have
presented in the courts of the States of Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria
and Queensland.

It is of alarm that these ‘non-judgements’ have subsequently been quoted as
precedents that have established that there is no substance to the Constitutional
argument being advanced.

Argument presented to Australia’s Highest court - the high Court of Australia

As the result of an attempt by several individuals to have the issues brought before the
Full Bench of the High Court of Australia, Justice Hayne elected to convert five
individual cases into a class action. The only common class being that all five Applicants
were citizens of Australia. Justice Hayne restricted each Applicant to 10 minutes, in turn,
to present their case after which time he retired for some 25 minutes to consider and write

64

his finding which, it was reported, took him approximately 55 minutes to read. He
disposed of the five Applications in a common class judgement.

Students of, and researchers into, Australia’s status within the international community of
nations found the Judge’s ruling to be quite amazing.

Apart from the fact that the Judge relied on the legal authority of the United Kingdom
government for significant parts of his judgement he denied that Australia possessed
domestic sovereignty while at the same time indicating that it has international
sovereignty!

The Hayne ruling, that international law and treaties have no legal effect in Australia
unless they were adopted into domestic law failed to take into account that the two
treaties, the Treaty of Versailles, and the Charter of the United Nations, both central to the
argument presented, had both been enacted into Australian law. (One via Treaty of Peace
Act (1919 -1920 ), the other via the Charter of the United Nations Act (No 32 of 1945).

In his ruling he stated that:

“...The immediate question is what law is to be applied in the
courts of Australia. The former questions about the likelihood of Imperial legislation and
international status can be seen as reflecting on whether Australia is an independent and
sovereign nation. But they do so in two ways: whether some polity can or would seek to
legislate for this country and whether Australia is treated internationally as having the
attributes of sovereignty. Those are not questions that intrude upon the immediate issue
of the administration ofjustice according to law in the courts of Australia In particular,
they do not intrude upon the question of what law is to be applied by the courts.

That question is resolved by covering cl 5 of the Constitution. It provides:

“This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the
Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of
every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State ”.

It is, then to the Constitution and to laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth
under the Constitution that the courts must look.... ”

ANNEXURE 28

By ruling thus Justice Hayne effectively locked Australia into being a colony. However,
even within the Judges amazing ruling and his assertions in relation to the continued use
of the British law, the Constitution Act, these two Treaties are applicable as both
domestic and international law. Their content of international law is in fact Australian law
- by whatever premise anyone might wish to adopt. Thus because of the content of these
laws, namely. The Treaty of Peace Act and The Charter of the United Nations Act, both
made under the Constitution, the Hayne ruling is interpretable as inhibiting, under clause
5 of the Act, the application of the very same British law which contains at clause 9, that
same Constitution!

An even more astounding facet of this judges ruling is that in his process of reasoning he
overruled the Full Bench (including himself) of the High Court of Australia in a

65

judgement handed down just eight months earlier. By way of this ruling the Court found
that Treaty law did, in fact, override domestic law.

On two separate occasions attempts were made to serve writs of certiorari on this judge.
In each instance High Court Registries refused to accept them stating, verbally, that
decisions of the High Court may not be challenged! ANNEXURE 29

It is of great concern that this wholly unreliable judgement is repeatedly quoted and used
by lower courts to summarily dismiss defence where constitutional issues are presented.
This occurs even despite a later judgement which ruled differently.

Ruling of Full Bench of High Court effectively ‘Havne’ overturns ruling

In finding, on the 23rd June, that the United Kingdom is a power which is Foreign to
Australia, the Full Bench of 7 judges effectively negated the Hayne Judgement.

To arrive at this decision the Court, by necessity, needed to approach all aspects of the
United Kingdom’s relationship and influence in and on Australia’s affairs. Students of the
issues concerned recognise that like other courts this court went to great lengths to protect
‘current practice’ by recording their decision in language that is so tortured and
contorted that its content is largely meaningless. The full 100 pages may be examined
on website http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/30.html

ANNEXURE 30

Despite the fact that the' Constitution Act and the Constitution itself can only recognise
and function in the Monarchy of the United Kingdom, the Court chose to rule that the
United Kingdom is a foreign power for purposes of interpreting Section 44(i) of the
constitution. ANNEXURE 1

This decision has, under the same Section 44(i) as well as S44(ii) effectively disqualified
all sitting Members in both the Senate and the House of Representatives because every
member, under S42 of the Constitution has sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen in
the Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern Ireland).This Oath is
contained in the Schedule to the Constitution and is beyond amendment by the Australian
Parliament or by the Australian people. It may only be altered by the Parliament of the
United Kingdom. ANNEXURE 31

Paragraph 96 of this 298 paragraph judgement is sufficient to illustrate the alarming
inconsistency in interpretation for which the High Court is noted.

“The point of immediate significance is that the circumstance that the same monarch
exercises regal functions under the constitutional arransements in the United
Kingdom and Australia does not deny the proposition that the United Kingdom is a
foreign power within the meaning of s44(i) of the Constitution. Australia and the
United Kingdom have their own laws as to nationality so that their citizens owe
different allegiances . The United Kingdom has a distinct legal personality and it
exercises of sovereignty, for example in entering military alliances , participating in
armed conflicts and acceding to treaties such as the Treaty of Rome, themselves have
no legal consequences for this country . Nor, as we have sought demonstrate in Section

66

III, does the United Kingdom exercise any function with respect to the Governmental
structures of the Commonwealth or States. ” (emphasis added)

The Court ruled that Australia, like the United Kingdom enjoys full sovereign status, but
both sovereignties exist in the same monarchy! while citizens of each nation have
different allegiances!

There is little doubt that the High Court, like State courts, has become an extension of the
political system. This Full Bench decision had the result of preventing a successful
candidate in a Senate election from taking a seat in the Senate of the Australian
Parliament on the grounds that when she had taken out Australian citizenship she had not
renounced her United Kingdom citizenship. She was a member of a newly established
political party whose modus operandi has been to attack and expose the corruption and
malpractice which has developed within the long established political parties.

High Court of Australia Contradicts itself in consecutive Judgements .

In the very next High Court Judgement, Justice Hayne, a member of the Full Bench which
handed down the judgement mentioned above, yet again, contradicted himself and his
fellows by ruling that laws applied in Australia must satisfy the conditions set down by
the parliament of the United Kingdom. That is, he again ruled that Australia does not
enjoy domestic sovereignty! These examples effectively illustrate that, no matter what the
cost to truth, justice, and logic, courts at all levels deliver findings that ensure that the
established system is maintained irrespective of any and all international illegalities
involved ANNEXURE 32

To protect the political system that directly appointed them. Judges sitting in Australia’s
highest Court, the ‘High Court of Australia’ have debased that Court by selective
evaluation of evidence presented thus resulting in illogical and even irrational decisions.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is considered more important to protect
the existing political system through maintaining ‘current practice’ than to dispense truth
and justice.

Attorney-General condones breach of international law

Annexure 33 contains an exchange of correspondence involving the Federal Attorney-
General, who is the ultimate protector of law in the Commonwealth of Australia,.
Through this exchange it is possible to interpret that the Federal Government is prepared
to condone the committing of offences, against both domestic and international law, by
the nations courts, rather than face the invalidity of ‘current practice’ and make the
necessary adjustments to validate its authority. ANNEXURE 33

High Court asked to rule on disqualification of all sitting members of parliament

As a result of this Full Bench ruling, a Notice of Motion has been lodged with the High
Court of Australia requiring that it rule that their Judgement that the United Kingdom is a
foreign power, has effectively disqualified all sitting members in the Australian

67

parliament in that they have sworn and subscribed an oath of allegiance to the Monarch of
that same foreign power.

ANNEXURE 34

The people have approached and made demands of individuals assuming positions of
power on both sides of the political spectrum. They have taken the argument to lower
courts, they have called on the protector of Australian law, the Attorney - General, to see
that those charged with administering the law obey that same law. They have presented
the facts of the invalidity of the political system in use in Australia to the highest court in
the land. All to no avail. The people have enjoyed no success. They have not wrested
control over their affairs from the existing invalid system. However,.

Charade of calling a referendum for the people to decide; Monarchy or a Republic?

Perhaps the much publicised referendum to decide whether Australia will be a ‘Republic’
or a ‘Monarchy’ into the next millennium could be attributed to persistent agitation by
informed and concerned citizens.

This referendum is dated for November 6th. As this submission goes to press, on August
5th, the process of drafting the legislation pertaining to ‘The Republic’ and the wording
of the questions to be put to the people has not been finalised. In fact Parliamentary
committees are still meeting in an attempt to resolve matters of principle.

Despite this, it is clear that the legislation being created to permit and conduct this
referendum will inevitably result in the fundamental principle for each of the options
advanced relying on the retention of the United Kingdom Parliament’s domestic law, ‘An
Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’! Any approach other than this
would necessitate an admission that power has been maintained without the
necessary authority. It is clear this does not present as an option to politicians, the
judiciary or senior bureaucrats.

Thus this ‘offering’ to the people to choose between a ‘monarchy’ or a ‘republic’ results,
either way, in a perpetuation of the present fundamentally flawed and thus invalid
situation.

The current proposition to “bridge the legal void” represents just another in an 80 year
procession of charades.

Each time the legal void in which Australia finds itself suspended is seriously
exposed the Australian Parliament colludes with United Kingdom Parliament to
produce some ‘creative legislation’. While in between such times the Australian
courts regularly indulge in producing ‘creative judgements’ which ignore, not only
the legal void but also the existence of civil rights implicit in international treaties to
which Australia is a signatory. When pertinent questions are asked of the
Australian Attorney-General he persistently evades responsibility by requiring an
‘Adviser* to provide the signed response.

There exists clear signs of an imminent collapse of political and judicial structures
curently in use in Australia.

68

THE INTERNATIONAL ARENA:

SOME PROJECTED EFFECTS OF THE PROLONGATION IN OFFICE OF AN
INVALID AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT

This report has thus far been concerned with the effects of the continued application of
United Kingdom Law on Australia’s internal affairs and the consequent effects on the
citizenry of Australia.

However, this does not represent the limit of the concerns that are held for it is clear that
the existing situation, as it becomes more widely understood, has the potential to
profoundly affect Australia’s standing in relation to international affairs. This in turn may
bring an entirely new set of problems for the people of Australia.

Australia citizenship laws invalid

Within Australia there are a large number of residents who have emigrated from their
place of birth. Many of these people have chosen, in accordance with the National
Citizenship Act 1948, to become ‘naturalised’ Australian citizens choosing, in the
process, to renounce the citizenship which they brought with them.

Apart from the established argument relating to the invalidity of the Australian
Constitution which in turn renders the National Citizenship Act 1948 invalid, there exists
no power within the Constitution to create other than British citizens.

In other words the Constitution makes no provision for the creation of Australian citizens.

It is of grave concern that should the situation be challenged in the international arena it
will be found that a very significant proportion of Australian residents will be found, in
the legal sense, to be stateless. Perhaps a more serious scenario may occur thus; on the
establishment that the asylum believed to be afforded by ‘Australian citizenship’ and
residency is invalid, individuals will thus have lost all protection and may find themselves
victimised through being again subjected to the laws of a State that it was believed had,
for whatever reason, been renounced.

As an aside to this

On the Australian domestic scene an interesting aside to this scenario arises thus :-

People naturalised under the National Citizenship Act 1948 cannot validly occupy a seat
in an Australian parliament. But more significantly, since Australian electoral roles
contain the names of citizens created by way of the National Citizenship Act 1948, it
follows that parliaments have been elected by unqualified voters and therefore those
parliaments have no status as representatives of the Australian people.

69

International Treaties

Validity of International Treaties to which the Australian Government is a signatory

Authorities canvassed have been unable to indicate precisely how many treaties to which
Australia is a signatory. Different definitions produce answers ranging from 940 to
upwards of 3,000.

As already established in the body of this paper, and compounded by the simple scenario
outlined immediately above, the ‘Government’ responsible for signing these treaties
could not, at any time, under international law, have validly represented the sovereign
peoples of Australia, that is, by definition, the legal entity, the Commonwealth of
Australia. Thus it would seem that it may well be argued that any, each, and every one of
these treaties may, at any time be declared invalid and therefore not binding on signatory
States.

This in turn represents a threat to the protection of, amongst other things, commercial and
intellectual property, patents, contracts, extradition orders and even peace treaties and
defence alliances.

It is demonstrably clear that, by continuing to permit the application of United Kingdom
law in Australia, both signatory Member States, Australia and the United Kingdom, have
contravened both the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United
Nations.

In the first instance: .... “In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a
Member of the League have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this
Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its
release from such obligations. ” (Article 20 of the Covenant of the League of Nations)

and in the second instance; “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of a
Member of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any
other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall
prevail. ”. (Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations)

It is projected that if the unrepresentative and invalid governmental structure of the
Commonwealth of Australia is permitted to continue serious repercussions within
the international arena are inevitable.

70

RIGHT TO SOVEREIGNTY DENIED

The present corrupted system of government in Australia has developed and
evolved as a result of a failure to establish a citizen based foundation for the
politico/legal system operating in Australia.

People assuming power are reluctant to relinquish the control that they eniov

The authors and submitters of this report, being informed and concerned Australians,
believed it reasonable to expect that politicians and members of the Judiciary, after
having on many occasions, been confronted with the facts of history and the demands of
international law, would have declared it both necessary and urgent, to create and install a
valid instrument to bridge the 79 year legal void resulting from the 1919/1920 change in
sovereignty of Australia..

However, because of the outcomes of direct approaches to all high offices, including the
entire court system, within Australia, it has become abundantly clear that that which
would cause the Australian Government to become a legitimate member of the World
Community of Governments is unattainable through civil action within Australia.

It is now clear that the adjustments necessary to give a valid status to the government of
the Commonwealth of Australia, are “..not matters of municipal law but the law of
nations and are not cognisable in a court exercising jurisdiction under that sovereignty
which is sought to be challenged.

The people approach the International Arena

In desperation, an application was made to the International Court of Justice. As reported
above, despite the convincing argument presented, the sovereign Australian people
submitting the application were not granted standing by that court.

Thus now, this approach to, the individual Member States of the General Assembly, the
Security Council, the Human Rights Commission and the International Criminal
Commission, all of the United Nations.

Under the Charter of the United Nations all Member States have an obligation through, a
mutual guarantee, to ensure that each Member State shall enjoy political freedom,
political sovereignty.

The expression of the affairs of State rest directly with the sovereign people

The content of this report clearly establishes that those claiming the power to govern over
the sovereign people of Australia do so, not only, without the necessary authority of those
same people but, as demonstrated, have also sworn and signed an oath of allegiance to the
Monarch in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, a power foreign to Australia.
Accordingly the ‘Australian government’ does not, and can not, validly represent the
federated sovereign peoples of Australia, that is, the Commonwealth of Australia.

As a result, affairs of State and the representation in matters of State can only be
expressed through the direct actions of the sovereign people.

71

Notice of intention to apply for an International Criminal Tribunal issued

On the 8th June 1999 notice of intention to apply for the establishment of an International
Criminal Tribunal was served on:

1) the individual assuming the role of Prime Minister and leader of the Government of
Australia, Mr John Howard,

2) the individual assuming role of Federal Attorney-General, Mr Darryl Williams,

3) and the individual assuming the role of Leader of the Opposition to the Government of

Australia. Mr Kim Beasley. ANNEXURE 35

A response, dated 27th July 1999 has been received from the Office of the Attorney-
General over the signature of an ‘Adviser’. This response restates the politically
convenient ‘theory of sovereignty through evolution’ while confirming that ‘Australia is a
fully independent nation’ in which ‘Imperial law’ may still be applied!

The response also states that, in general, international law including the Charter of the
United Nations, is not binding on Australian courts in relation to the individual rights of
Australian citizens and does not impose any obligation on the actions of either an
individual or the executive. ANNEXURE 35

(It is pertinent to mention that the ‘Hayne J’ in Joosse and Anor v Australian Securities
and Investment Commission (ASIC) judgement relied on (see ANNEXURE 28) resulted
in the ASIC pursuing the matter but then in the light of a High Court Full Bench decision
in Sue v Hill (see extracts, ANNEXURE 30) which effectively overruled Hayne J, seeking
an adjournment sine die rather than face a full Constitutional argument. Yet the Attorney-
General, no doubt finding the arguments presented unanswerable, continues to rely on
this ‘unsafe’ judgement.)

Concerned and informed Australian citizens have taken exhaustive measures to
extract their sovereign nation from the influence of foreign powers. They continue to
be totally denied their inalienable right to self determination.

•k-k-k'kifk-k’k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k’k'k’k’k’k’k’k-k’k-k

72

REQUEST IN CONCLUSION

This submission has demonstrated that the federated peoples of Australia, which
constitute the legal entity, the Commonwealth of Australia, is an independent sovereign
nation.

This submission has demonstrated that the six Australian State Governments as well as
the Federal Government of Australia remain extensions of the United Kingdom
Government.

This submission has also demonstrated that those exerting power through these
governmental structures, as well as those individuals nominated to act on their behalf, are
clearly definable as agents of a power foreign to the Commonwealth of Australia.

This submission has demonstrated that individuals within Australia, in concert with the
Government of the United Kingdom, have repeatedly acted to conceal the political and
legal truth that the sovereign people constituting the Commonwealth of Australia have for
almost eighty years been denied die right to self determination.

And finally the content of the correspondence presented in the final annexure
(ANNEXURE 35) to this submission clearly and decisively demonstrates that those
assuming the role of the Australian Government, even in the face of the most extreme
action which the sovereign people may take, persist with what is seen as a hopeless
charade and in the process tenuously rely on a single, extremely questionable, High Court
Judgement.

Aware and informed citizens recognise that the long standing situation
has now degenerated to a stage where a breakdown in law and order,
with associated violence, is entirely predictable and that urgent
corrective action is called for.

Having absolutely exhausted all possible domestic avenues of rectification it is now
apparent that the only non violent action remaining open to the citizenry of
Australia lies with this appeal to individual members of the international
community who, being co-signatories to the Charter of the United Nations,
guarantee the Commonwealth of Australia, under Articles 2, 4, 6. 102 and 103, as
well as various resolutions, the right to self determination .

Therefore, a request is made, to all Member States to individually and collectively
present and plead our cause before the General Assembly of the United Nations. We
ask, through those same Member States, for the General Assembly: -

1. to establish, within the territory of Australia, an International Tribunal to
investigate, with the view to the confirmation of, the allegations contained in this

73

submission and as a result have all Australian governments at all levels declared,
under international law, invalid..

2. to establish within the territory of Australia an International Criminal Tribunal,
to prosecute individuals named in the annexures of this report and any other
individuals who have been seen to be aiding and abetting the continuing breach of
international law through the application of United Kingdom law within the
territory of the sovereign nation State, the Commonwealth of Australia.

3. to implement such other procedures as are seen as necessary to uphold the
Charter of the United Nations.

4. to initiate and maintain procedures necessary to ensure the security of people
residing, both individually and collectively, in the territory of the Commonwealth of
Australia up to and until the successful implementation of a Constitution agreed to
by way of a plebiscite conducted amongst all mature Australian citizens.

5. to declare Australia’s seat at the United Nations to be persona non grata until such
time as a representative is nominated by a Government which validly represents the
sovereign and federated people of Australia, that is, the Commonwealth of
Australia.

***********************

Institute for 1

Constitutional Education and Research Inc.

A.R.B.N. A0037928M

High Commissioner

Human Rights Commission

OHCHR UNOG CH1221

GENEVA

SWITZERLAND

and

N. Y. 10017

NEW YORK. USA

The Secretariat
Security Council
United Nations
N.Y. 10017
NEW YORK USA

‘AUSTRALIA The Concealed colony’

A submission in two volumes presented in August 1999 to all 185 Member States
of the United Nations and to all appropriate organs within the United Nations

SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION NO 1. 12th January 2000

Content

I. Letter of introduction

II. Notes outlining the essence of the original submission

III. Justification for considering this supplementary submission and for its
acceptance for attachment as an additional annexure to the original document.

IV. Request to both the HRC and the Security Council to take urgent interim measures
to ensure that individuals do not create situations which would justify offended
parties taking action under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

V. Accompanying documents as listed on page 5.

I. LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

In August/September of 1999 this Institute tendered, in the name of the
sovereign people of the Commonwealth of Australia, an application and request for
the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal (Australia). This was done by
way of a submission entitled 'A USTRALIA The Concealed colony ' which was
individually presented to all 185 Member States of the United Nations. In addition
copies were presented to the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights
Committee, the Security Council, the International Crimes Commission, the General
Secretariat as well as personal copies to the Secretary General, Mr Koffi Annan.

It is apparent that every Nation has, and all organs within the United Nations
Organisation have accepted the submission.

From reports received by this Institute it is also apparent that the Government of the
United Kingdom has confirmed that Australia achieved sovereign nation status in
1919 , an occurrence which rendered British law ultra vires with regard to Australia.

PO Box 9112 Tel (03) 8796 3861

Seaford Del i9ocim?nts\HRC ICJ UN CommunicationsXHRC Gary And Katiiy Friend Matter Final.Doc 8796 3862

Seaford VIC 3198 ■ Fax (03) 8796 3322

2

And further, that that Government has confirmed that Queen Elizabeth II is a statutory
Monarch whose Office is integral with the United Kingdom Legislature and therefore
cannot give valid assent or have legal influence in the internal affairs of Australia.

In the light of such revelations and other developments some Australian court
systems, law enforcement agencies and government bodies have, during this interim
period, been seen to exercise restraint and caution in applying their claimed powers.

In this regard authorities in the State of Queensland represent a clear exception.

This part of Australia has traditionally been where the most oppression has occurred and
where, even in the present circumstances, such oppression continues to be exercised
without restraint.

Since presenting the original submission this Institute has been made aware that
people claiming certain powers under current law of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom have, within the Australian State of Queensland, served on Australian
citizens notice of intention by way of Royal command to dispossess those Australian
citizens of their freehold property.

This command, to the Sheriff of Queensland, is purported to have been issued by
Queen Elizabeth the Second. It was witnessed by the Chief Justice of Queensland and
signed by a clerk ‘for the Registrar’of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

This command has been supported by the High Court of Australia through the issuing
of two separate “Enforcement Warrants” directing the Marshall of the High Court of
Australia to “seize and sell... real and personal property” of these same Australian
citizens.

Because the power, here exercised, is derived entirely under a current domestic law of
the Parliament of the United Kingdom this Institute interprets this incident as
constituting an act of aggression perpetrated by one Member State of the UN within
the sovereign Territory of another Member State of the UN. Technically this situation
amounts to an invasion.

Consequently, the situation that has been created has the clear potential to precipitate
Action under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

This Institute believes that every effort should be made, by all responsible authorities,
to ensure that this potential is neutralised without delay.

Accordingly the Human Rights Commission and the Security
Council as well as other appropriate organ/s within the United
Nations Organisation are requested to initiate urgent interim
measures that will ensure that ‘pressure’ generated by this incident is
relieved quickly and that safeguards are created to forestall the
development of similar situations

At the same time, because the nature of, and implications to be drawn from, this
particular incident have not been dealt with in the submission as it currently exists, it
is requested that this communication and developed argument, together with the
enclosed documents, be received as a supplementary submission to be included with
the annexures tended with the original submission.

C:\My Documents\HRC ICJ UN CommunicationsYHRC Gary And Kathy Friend Matter Final.Doc

2

3

At a later date further indictments of other Queensland Judges, Registrars and like
officials will be submitted with the view to having ICT investigations and
prosecutions commence in that State.

Yours truly,

Peter Batten.

^ ^ ^ j** «| « «| ^ ^ «|«

II. NOTES OUTLINING THE ESSENCE OF THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION:

The Commonwealth of Australia is, by definition, an indissoluble federation of the

Australian people. After a limited expression of the will of the people the federation

was created by an Act of British colonial law proclaimed on 1 st January 1901.

1) The United Nations has clearly demonstrated that from at least 24 October 1945
the Commonwealth of Australia has been recognised, under international law, as
an independent sovereign nation. That is to say, Australia is no longer a
dependency of the United Kingdom.

2) It has been established that the United Kingdom Parliament has, by statute, via its
1948 ‘Nationality Act’, decreed that from at least January 1, 1949 Australia has
not been a dependency of the United Kingdom.

3) In keeping with all definitions of sovereignty as well as the dictates of
international law, on achieving independence all British colonial law, including
'An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia ’ , became ultra vires with
regard to Australia.

4) At that same time the British Monarch and the Parliament of the United Kingdom
became irrelevancies with regard to the affairs of government within Australia.

5) As a result of the change in sovereignty over the Commonwealth of Australia from,
the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the citizenry of Australia, all Australian
Parliaments, Governments and instrumentalities including, the Courts, dependent for
their existence on the British law ‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of
Australia ceased to have validity at the time that that change occurred.

6) As a consequence all individuals assuming power under the terms of the Constitution,
are definable as agents of the foreign power, the United Kingdom and that this is
confirmed by the terms of the Oath of allegiance to which many serving individuals
must swear and subscribe.

7) That this is so, was reinforced with the United Kingdom Government’s confirmation
that ‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia ’ remains a current Act of
Domestic law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and that it can only be
altered and repealed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

8) That Constitution Act (at Clause 2) decrees that the only Monarchy recognisable by
the Constitution (Clause 9 of the Act) is the Monarch in the Sovereignty of the
United Kingdom.

9) The Office, ‘Queen of Australia’ is an Office that exists without authority, it is
purely titular.

C:\My Documents\HRC ICJ UN Communications\HRC Gary And Kathy Friend Matter Final.Doc

3

4

No Head of Power exists in the Constitution to declare another Monarch. And
even if it did a referendum under Section 128 of the Constitution (clause 9 of the
Act) would have had to be conducted. Even then a ‘catch 22’ situation would
exist because Clause 2 of the Act defining the Monarch for the purpose of the Act
lies outside the reach of Section 128 of the Constitution. Conclusion: it is not
possible, under any circumstance, for ‘The Queen of Australia 5 to have any legal
influence on the affairs of Australia.

10) “ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God, Queen of Her other Realms
and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth” is, by definition, ‘Queen of the United
Kingdom 5

11) The Act of Settlement (UK) 1701 decrees that the British Monarch must be
appointed by, and become an integral part of, the United Kingdom legislature.

Thus the only valid Office of Queen Elizabeth the Second is the ‘Queen in the
Parliament of the United Kingdom’ and that Office possesses no authority outside
that parliament.

There exists a plethora of legal opinion supporting this - including the Queen’s
own website.

12) So it is that, to undertake anything in the name of, or to swear an oath to Queen
Elizabeth the Second legally constitutes an action in the name of, or a committal to
the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

**************************

III. JUSTIFICATION FOR CONSIDERING THIS SUPPLEMENTARY

SUBMISSION AND FOR ITS ACCEPTANCE FOR ATTACHMENTAS AN
ADDITIONAL ANNEXURE TO THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.

Be pleased to receive the afore and that which follows as a supplementary
submission for inclusion in the annexures to the submission ‘AUSTRALIA The
Concealed colony’ and to be dealt with under
‘Application and Request 1 and specifically clauses 2,3 and 4.

This supplementary submission arises out of a matter involving the illegal application
of British colonial law to oppress Australian citizens within the sovereign territory of
the Commonwealth of Australia which is additional to those contained in the original
submission.

In this instance the oppression is demonstrated by way of an incomplete series of
appeals conducted within a court system established under United Kingdom law
which is ultra vires in relation to the sovereign independent State, the Commonwealth
of Australia.

This oppression has culminated in the issuing, by a court established under United
Kingdom law, of an enforcement warrant to seize and sell freehold property to satisfy
a claim lodged by the equally invalid local government authority, the Laidley Shire
Council (Mayor Shirley Pitt. Chief Executive Officer Christopher M. Payne) for debts
allegedly incurred by that council in the process of conducting incomplete and
therefore unsatisfied court actions involving Australian Citizens Gary Stephen Friend
and Kathryn June Friend.

C:\My Documcnts\HRC ICJ UN Communications\HRC Gary And Kalhy Friend Matter Final.Doc

4

While the Institute has been well aware that many instance of dispossession have
occurred, and continue to occur, the Institute has not before been able to gain access
to sufficient documentation to permit it to cite the practice before a tribunal.

5

However in the case cited in this supplementary submission full records including
letters of communication, court transcripts details of intimidation, including forcible
incarceration without warrant, etc, etc, have been maintained and will be made
available if required.

The attached documents relate to the culmination of prolonged coercive actions
entered into by persons who have used United Kingdom law to assume the power to
do so. In part those actions have involved an incomplete and therefore unsatisfied
series of court actions, namely;

Court 1 : Queensland Local Government Court before - Judge Row
Court 2 : Queensland Planning and Environment Court - Judge Quirk
Court 3 : Queensland Supreme Court, Court of Appeal - Judges Davies,

Me Pherson and Fitzgerald.

Court 4 : High Court of Australia, Court of Appeal - Judges Kirby and Callinan.

Court 5 : Queensland Planning and Environment Court - Judge Quirk.

Court 6 : Queensland Supreme Court, Court of Appeal - Chief Justice of Queensland,

Paul de Jersey, Judges, Me Murdo and Moynihan.

Court 7 : High Court of Australia - The application to this court included, in part,
a requirement that the court declare its ultimate source of authority.

As a consequence the Court’s Registrar, believed to be in the person of
either, Deputy Registrar Margaret Rischbieth or Senior Registrar Carolyn
Rogers chose, wrongly, to rule that the Appellants had abandoned the case.

A cursory examination of details relating to the conduct of individuals exercising
power in relation to this drawn out series of appeals together with knowledge of the
persistent stance relating to civil and political rights displayed by Australian citizens,

Gary and Kathryn Friend has been conducted.

In addition to the individuals here listed, other people in positions of power have, while
in possession of the facts, clearly imposed unduly on Mr and Mrs Friend through the
unauthorised application of British colonial law. These include representatives of local
government and their employees, members of the Queensland Police Force as well as
court officials, including Registrars and members of the Sheriff s Office, and in addition
and in particular, principals in the Brisbane law firm ‘Connor O’Meara, solicitors’.

ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS - offered as justification for statements made above

1) Letter of request dated 25 th May 1999 to the Registry of the High Court of Australia
which precipitated the arbitrary decision that Mr and Mrs Friend had abandoned the
case. No reply to this letter has been forthcoming.

2) Documents served on 21 Dec. 1999; by Qld. Police officers posing as court officials.

i) LETTER dated 17 th December 1999 from CONNOR O’MEARA solicitors.

ii) WRIT OF FIERI FACIAS FOR COSTS - Supreme Court of Queensland

iii) ENFORCEMENT WARRANT - Seizure and Sale of Property No. B50 of 1997-
High Court of Australia, Brisbane (Queensland) Registry.

iv) ENFORCEMENT WARRANT - Seizure and Sale of Property No B45 of 1998 -
High Court of Australia, Brisbane (Queensland) Registry.

C:\My DocumentsVHRC ICJ UN Communicaiions\HRC Gary And Kathy Friend Matter Final.Doc

5

6

The Institute considers that this incident, extending over some 11 years,
represents an archetypal illustration of the nature and intensity of oppression to
which Australian citizens are subjected, particularly in Queensland, when these
same citizens question people in positions of power and require them to identify
the ultimate source of their claimed authority.

Accordingly it is believed that this is an important aspect of the ‘Australian situation’
which deserves to be examined and taken into account when considering the
Application for the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal (Australia).
And naturally, after the establishment of such a tribunal, this specific case deserves to
be prosecuted.

IV. REQUEST TO BOTH THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND THE
SECURITY COUNCIL TO TAKE URGENT INTERIN MEASURES TO
ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUALS DO NOT CREATE SITUATIONS THAT
WOULD JUSTIFY OFFENDED PARTIES TAKING ACTION UNDER
ARTICLE 51 OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

It is not uncommon in Australia for landholders and other property owners to be
subjected to unreasonable treatment by those assuming the power to seize and sell
assets. There have been many reports of such incidents ending in tragedy for the
citizen and his family.

However, as knowledge of the truth relating to the invalidity of the laws being applied
in Australia becomes more widespread it is inevitable that action under Article 51 of
the Charter of the United Nations will be employed by victimised citizens.

The seriousness of such situations becomes clearer when it is understood that those
charged with the task of executing the seizure and possession warrant are likely to be
totally unaware of the illegality of their actions.

It is clear that such ignorance exists as a direct result of the United Kingdom failing to
make any public statement relating to the invalidity of the ongoing use of its laws in
Australia. Existing parallel with this is a series of decisions made by Australian
‘Governments’ to place restrictions on the national media so that the people will not
become aware of the realities relating to the invalidity of Australian Governments.

Thus it is that any event involving seizure and possession of property is needlessly
charged with a potential to precipitate a catastrophe.

This Institute is of the opinion that the case presented in this supplementary
submission serves as an illustration of a situation which is sufficiently serious to
warrant the urgent implementation of interim measures to immediately curtail
the issuing of ‘command to seize and possess’ orders by Courts operating in
Australia.

Accordingly both the Human Rights Commission and The UN Security Council are
requested to direct attention to the following specific examination and analysis of the
of the ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS, ii), iii) and iv).

C:\My DocumentsVHRC ICJ UN Communications\HRC Gary And Kathy Friend Matter Final.Doc

6

7

Document ii). WRIT OF FIERI FACIAS For Costs - Supreme Court of Queensland .

This document constitutes a command, allegedly issued by the Sovereign of the
United Kingdom whose powers are limited to the United Kingdom and its
dependencies.

This command is to dispossess Australian citizens of their freehold Australian
“lands”, as well as their “goods, chattels, choses in action, and other property”.

The form of the writ is such that the command has been issued in the name of the
Westminster Parliament under legislation which is clearly British domestic law.

Those responsible for preparing, serving and ultimately executing this writ claim
power to do so under this same current domestic law of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom. In legal terms they are each agents of the United Kingdom. Many have
sworn and subscribed to a solemn oath of allegiance and service to the Parliament of
the United Kingdom.

This Writ, being a command issued by one Member State of the United Nations to
seize land and other property within the Territory of another Member State of the
United Nations means that, in basic terms, this writ legally constitutes an invasion.

It is in fact interpretable as a formal act of war. As such it may be met with a response
under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Documents hi) and iv) are ENFORCEMENT WARRANT/S - Seizure and Sale of

Property - issued by the Registry of the HIGH COURT OF
AUSTRALIA.

These warrants have been issued by the highest court, apart from the Australian
Parliament itself, created by the current Act of United Kingdom domestic law, 'An
Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia \

All Judges appointed to the High Court of Australia have received their ‘Letters of
Commission’ directly from Queen Elizabeth the Second through which Office they
have Sworn and subscribed to an oath to “be faithful and bear true allegiance to
Queen Elizabeth II” which means in fact, the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

The issuing of these warrants by the High Court represents a clear endorsement and
confirmation of the aggressive actions, promulgated in the name of QUEEN
ELIZABETH THE SECOND in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, by
individuals who have acted through the agency of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The High Court of Australia, being established under current British domestic law and
whose members have sworn to serve the Parliament of the United Kingdom have,
through the issuing of these Enforcement Warrants, endorsed and supported the
intention of a United Kingdom invasion (as defined) announced by way of a WRIT
OF FIERI FACIAS (see included document i)) issued through the Supreme Court of
Queensland.

These things being so, we are advised that this particular incident, generated in the
name of the United Kingdom and executed within the sovereign territory of the

C:\My DocumenLsYHRC ICJ UN Communications\HRC Gary And Kathy Friend Matter Final.Doc

7

Commonwealth of Australia, both Member States of the United Nations, clearly
results in an issue that comes under the jurisdiction of the War Crimes Commission.

So it is that, in addition to presenting this Supplementary Submission to the Human
Rights Commission, ultimately for action by an International Criminal Tribunal
within the terms of the Submission entitled ‘AUSTRALIA The Concealed colony’,
the Security Council of the United Nations is also formally and duly notified of an
alleged act of aggression by one Member State against another Member State of the
United Nations.

In the interests of justice, peace and good order within the Sovereign nation of
the Commonwealth of Australia both organisations are requested to examine,
define and deal with this specific matter without delay.

Peter Batten,

For the Institute of Constitutional Education and Research, and on behalf of the
sovereign people of Australia, who by definition, constitute the indissoluble
Commonwealth of Australia.

C:\My Documents\HRC ICJ UN Communications\HRC Gary And Kathy Friend Matter Final. Doc

‘AUSTRALIA The Concealed colony'

SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION NO l. 12th January 2000 ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT 1) page 1 of 3

Gary and Kathryn Friend
20 Topaz Crescent
Locfcyer Waters
Q'Id 4311
JUfth May, 1999.

Attention: -

Margaret Rischbieth
Deputy Registrar
High Court of Australia
P.O. Box E435
Kingston. ACT 2604.
Fax No: 02 6273 3025

Re:- Gary Stephen Friend & Kathryn June Friend V Laidley Shire
Council B 4 5 of 1998 .

Dear Madam,

Your correspondence dated 18 May 1999, received May 24, 1999, once

again confirms the "bias and prejudice" of ALL you represent; all
legislative bodies, all judicial systems, all civil servants, and
their agents, within the Independent Sovereign Nation of the
Commonwealth of Australia. This correspondence of yours also contains
"Threat and Intimidation", but what it doesn't contain is what you
were required to supply on behalf of yourself, and all the above
whom you represent; namely:-

1) Your source of power;

2) Your authority;

3) Your jurisdiction;

4) Your Head of Power;

5) A legally binding, valid and legitimate constitution;
written and approved by ALL the people of the Commonwealth of
Austral la.

Since the High Court of Australia has established that International
Treaty overrides municipal, National, domestic, statute, civil or
colonial law in the "Teoh Case of 1994", and established that the
The United Kingdom of Great Britain was a "Foreign Power" in the
"Robert Wood Case of 1988"; arid you continue to refuse to supply
us with any documented evidence which establishes your:-

1) Authority;

2) Jurisdiction;

3) Source of' power;

4) Head of Power;

5) Valid Constitution.

We refejc you to the requirement under International Law whereby
ANY court official, judge, magistrate, law officer, police officer,
or their agents must be able to produce ALL the above on demand.

One such section of International Law (but there are many) is
found in the United Nations: Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
of 1966, at Article 14 (and others),"Allowing hearings ONLY before
competent courts".

If you can't produce ANY of what we have already ashed for on a
number of occasions (not unfairly we think). We now ash that you
produce:~

1) Written permission from the United Nations to use Foreign Law
in contravention of Article 2: paragraphs 1 and 4, of the United

'AUSTRALIA The Concealed colony 1

SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION NO 1. 12th January 2000 ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT I) page 2 of 3

06/01 ’00 19:14

P02

A

Nations Charter of 1945;

2) Written permission from the League of Nations to use Foreign
Law in contravention of Articles 1, X, and XX; of the League of
Nations Covenant of 1919: and assented to by the United Nations as
being allowed to continue at International Law after the
establishment, and signing of the U.N. Charter by the various
Independent Member States;

3) Permission, in writing, from the United Kingdom of Great
Britain Parliament to continue the use of United Kingdom of Great
Britain Law in the Independent Sovereign Nation of the Commonwealth
of Australia; assented to and duly signed and sealed by the Royal
Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain; in contravention

of the United Kingdom of Great Britain Law, and International Law,
after January 10, 19 20;

4) Clear written evidence of the freely expressed permission by

the people of Australia, for the continued use of Foreign Colonial
Law, within the Commonwealth of Australia, after January 10, 1920;

when clearly ALL Foreign Law (colonial or otherwise) was deemed to
be abrogated (null and void) at International Law under the terms
of the League of Nations Covenant, upon the several Independent
Nations signing the Covenant (Australia and Great Britain were
original signatories).

Under International Law any judge, magistrate, judicial officer, ,
police officer, public servant or their agents imposing penalties
under invalid laws without the legal authority outlined above, does
so as a private individual and personally assumes all responsibility,
including repayment from their private assets, of any monies
collected or any damages or reparations later sought. If any person
is imprisoned under these invalid laws, the officers imposing that
imprisonment are in breach of the Geneva Convention Number 1V

To impose British Colonial Lav within the Commonwealth of Australia
is a breach of the 1947 Geneva Convention No.IV; and as such fits
snuggly within the definition of a "War Crime" under that Convention.
The penalties prescribed under this section of International Law
include capital punishment, substantial prison sentences and the
loss of all possessions, assets and monies.

We are most eager to appear before a court possessing valid, legal
authority, jurisdiction and power, under International Law; so we
await your early return of the documents listed, or their equivalent.
Until this request is complied with, all correspondence, judgement,
order, or action ‘is done without legal validity, and we maintain
ALL our rights and privilege at International Law. To be fair to
you; and all the members of the Australian judiciary, all court
officials, all police officers, all public servants, and their
agents, who you now represent; we allow you 2B days to comply with
all this request. Failure to supply all these documents within 2B
days will be taken as conformation that none exist. Thus llyears of
vexatious harrassment through the various courts of Australia
have constituted a massive combination of Human Rights violations
perpetrated by the people you now represent against us: Gary Stephen
Friend and Kathryn June Friend and Family. The fact that these Human
Rights Crimes are almost certainly considered "War Crimes" contrary
to the Geneva Convention 1947, has not escaped our consciousness.

It should also be noted that under Article 51 of the United Nations
Charter, citizens are entitled to "individual and collective self
defence" by any means allowed under the rules of War against the
actions of illegal governments, or courts, applying Foreign Law.

SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION NO 1. 12th January 2000

ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT 1) page 3 of 3

06/01 *00 19:15 P03

3

Due to your eluding that you have misplaced your original copy of
our letter of 13th Hay, 1999, please find enclosed a copy of that
letter posted at Gatton Post Office May 13, 1999.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Stephen Friend

and

Kathryn June Friend.

SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION NO 1 . 12th January 2000 ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT 2) i)

CONNOR O O'MEARA

I solicitors

Our Ref: Michael Connor:EAS:9703745

1 7 December 1 999

Mr G S & Mrs K L Friend
20 Topaz Crescent
LOCKYER WATERS 4311
HAND DELIVERY

Dear Sir and Madam

Laidley Shire Council ats Friend

We enclose by way of service an endorsed copy of the following:

1. Writ of Execution - Court of Appeal Proceeding No. 8630/97;

2. Enforcement Warrant - High Court Application No. B50/97; and

3. Enforcement Warrant - High Court Application No. B45/98.

Yours faithfully
CONNOR O'MEARA

Ira.24

This office will close for the Christmas break at
5.30pm on Thursday 23 December 1999 and
reopen at 8.00am on Tuesday 4 January ?nnn

LEVEL 16 255 ADELAIDE STREET
GPO BOX 2239 BRISBANE Q 4001
TEL {07} 3221 3033

SUP PLEMENTARY SUBMISSION NO 1 12 th January 2000 ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT 2) ii) page 1 of 2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

He -4-7 hn

Appeal No. 8630 of 1997

ON APPEAL FROM THE
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT

HELD AT BRISBANE P & E Application 217 of 1996

GARY STEPHEN FRIEND and KATHRYN JUNE
FRIEND

Appellants (First and Second Respondents)

LAIDLEY SHIRE COUNCIL

Respondent (Applicant)

BETWEEN:

AND;

He l b\ v ?ri' so

4 '°' 00 ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the-Grace of God, Queen of Australia and
Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

WRIT OF FIERI
FACIAS FOR
COSTS

T0: The Sheriff of Queensland

Filed on behalf of

saar****-**

|V ( \ Y command you that of the lands, tenements, goods, chattels, choses

/'i'f action ' an d other property, of GARY STEPHEN FRIEND and KATHRYN
JUNE FRIEND within the State of Queensland, of or to which the said
GARY STEPHEN FRIEND and KATHRYN JUNE FRIEND are seized,
possessed, or entitled, or which they can assign or dispose of, you
cause to be made the sum of $8,320.80 for certain costs, which by an
order of Our Supreme Court of Queensland bearing date the 23rd day of
October 1998 were ordered to be paid by the said GARY STEPHEN
FRIEND and KATHRYN JUNE FRIEND to LAIDLEY SHIRE COUNCIL, and
which have been default assessed and allowed at the said sum, as
appears by the certificate of the taxing officer of Our said Court filed the
fth day of March 1999 together with interest thereon at the rate of

CONNOR

O'MEARA

McCONAGHY

Solicitors

255 Adelaide St

BRISBANE 4000

Ph: 32213033
Fax: 32216661

Our Ref: 3967WRIT

SUPPLEMENTAR Y SUBMISSION NO l. 12th January 200D ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT 2) ii) page 2 of 2

10% par annum from the date „ 0 „„ id , ,„ a SI8200 (or com 0|
execution; end th.t »ou have the, money , nd . p ^

••id Court immediately ,h. execution hereof „ b , ^

LAIDLEY SHIRE COUNCIL in pursuence of the said order.

And in what m,„„„ y.„ shell hev. executed this Out w .i, make appe.r
to Us in Out said Court immediately after the execution hereof.

And have there then this writ.

WITNESS - The Honourable P.„, d. Jersey, Chief Justice of Queensland,

“ Bri,b '“' ,h ' ' 2,h °< Year c, o„. Lord On,

Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine.

•■SENJORCLERK’

~-:!' y UV, S8 ' 320 <!0 ' n<l S,82 °° •- “»>s of execution, Xi. interest

on >8,320.80 a, 10% W annum ^ d , y „until *

/' P ’ Vm "''' b ” id * »“"■<»».• officer’s fee,, cos,, of levying,

;all other le^al incidental expenses.

This writ was issued by Connor O'Meara McConaghy, Level 16, 255

Ade ' aide SUeet BfiSbane ' ^ thS St3te ° f Queensland, solicitors for the
M J ^ es P° n dent.

3tf

The Appellants reside at 20 Tooaz r rc >cr Q + , .

paz Crescent, Lockyer Waters,

Queensland.

SUPPLEMENTAR Y SUBMISSION NO I. I2th January 2000 ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT 2) iii) page 1 of 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRISBANE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY
No. B50 of 1997

APPLICANTS: GARY STEPHEN FRIEND and KATHRYN JUNE FRIEND

RESPONDENT: LA1DLEY SHIRE COUNCIL

\y/£

Enforcement Creditor: Laidley Shire Council

Enforcement Debtors: Gary Stephen Friend and Kathryn June Friend

AMOUNT OWING

The enforcement creditor obtained an order for costs on 17 April 1998 against the
enforcement debtor. On 17 December 1 998 the taxing officer issued a certificate
of taxation in respect of the order for costs, allowing the costs of the enforcement
creditor in the sum of $8,440.44. The amount outstanding by the enforcement
debtor is as follows:

Judgment amount
Less payments
Plus interest {to 6.12.99)
Plus costs
Total owing

$8,440.44
$ Nil

$ 817.74

132,QQ
$9.440.18

{plus interest
of $2.31 per
day after
6.12.99)

TO THE MARSHAL OR DEPUTY MARSHAL OF THE HIGH COURT:

You are to seize and sell such of the real and personal property (other than
exempt property) in which the enforcement debtor has a legal or beneficial
interest as will satisfy the total amount owing on the judgment.

("exempt property" means - property that is not divisible among the
creditors of a bankrupt under the relevant bankruptcy law as in force from
time to time.) ?

You are to report in writing to this registry concerning your execution of
this warrant and the results.

Enforcement Warrant - Seizure
a n d rS a I e^of-P r o p e r t y—- t . -
Filedl "drrBe half of the.Respondent

- 7 DEC 1£S9

No.

CONNOR O'MEARA
Solicitors

Level 16, 255 Adelaide Street
BRISBANE 4000
Ph: 3221 3033
Fax: 3221 6661

Our Ref: 2thl.97

SUPPLEMENTA RY submission NO 1. 12th January 2000 ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT 2) iii) page 2 of 2

2

Your attention is drawn to the provisions of Part 4 of Chapter 19 of the
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules concerning -

Order of selling property;

Payment by enforcement debtor before sale;

Storage before sale;

Nature of sale;

Sale at best price obtainable;

Advertising;

Postponement of sale;

Accountability for, and distribution of, money received;
Reserve price provisions.

The known property of the enforcement debtor is as follows-

Land situated at 20 Topaz Crescent Lockyer Waters and
described as Lots 10 and 11 on RP 141793, County of
Cavendish, Parish of England, Title References 1 5227077 and
15227078 ("the land").

Improvements and chattels situated upon the land.
This warrant expires on f (? IdcO

This enforcement warrant issued at lUI'S am/pm on
NOTICE TO ENFORCEMENT CREDITOR

A copy of this warrant must be served on the enforcement debtor either
personally or by post.

NOTICES TO ENFORCEMENT DEBTOR

After being served with this enforcement warrant you must not sell,
transfer or otherwise deal with your principal place of residence. Any sale,
transfer or other dealing in contravention of that requirement may be set
aside or^restrained by the Court.

After service on you of this warrant you may apply to the Court to set it
aside or stay execution.

The filing of that application does not stay the operation of the warrant.

e g i s t r a r^.
Dated: /T b

SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSI ON NO L 12th January 2000 ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT 2) iv) page 1 of 2

v# &Z/91
/ !27o/9?

APPLICANTS: GARY STEPHEN FRIEND and KATHRYN JUNE FRIEND

RESPONDENT: LAIDLEY SHIRE COUNCIL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRISBANE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY

l\ln R4R 1 QQR

Enforcement Creditor: Laidley Shire Council

Enforcement Debtors: Gary Stephen Friend and Kathryn June Friend

AMOUNT OWING

The enforcement debtors failed to comply with Order 69A Rule 10(9) on or before
21 May 1999 and accordingly pursuant to Order 69A Rule 13 the application for
special leave to appeal was deemed abandoned. A Certificate of Deemed
Abandonment was issued on 25 June 1 999. Pursuant to Order 69A Rule 1 2(2)
the enforcement creditor is entitled to recover costs from the enforcement
debtors. On 26 November 1999 the taxing officer issued a certificate of taxation
in respect of the Bill of Costs, allowing the costs of the enforcement creditor in
the sum of $6,278.45. The amount outstanding by the enforcement debtors is
as follows:

y^ “ v

I Jd'Q' iri i

*45". 'T* •;

«,«.....

Judgment amount
Less payments
Plus interest (to 13.12.99)
Plus costs
Total owing

$6,278.45
$ Nil

$ 29.24

$ 182.00
$6.489.69

(plus interest
of $1.72 per
day after
13.12.99)

TO THE MARSHAL OR DEPUTY MARSHAL OF THE HIGH COURT:

You are to seize and sell such of the real and personal property (other than
exempt property) in which the enforcement debtor has a legal or beneficial
interest as will satisfy the total amount owing on the judgment.

("exempt property" means - property that is not divisible among the
creditors of a bankrupt under the relevant bankruptcy law as in force from
time to time.)

Enforcement Warrant - Seizure
_agd Salq of Property

[HIGH COURT OF AU&T&Kld A. j b e h a I f e s p o n d e n t

• ' i

16 DEC 1S99

M

No.

THE REGISTRY C ANBERRA

CONNOR O'MEARA
Solicitors

Level 16, 255 Adelaide Street
BRISBANE 4000
Ph: 3221 3033
Fax: 3221 6661

Out Ref: 2fhe.32

SUPPLEMENTAR Y SUBMISSION NO 1 . I2th January 2000 ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT 2) iv) page 2 of 2

. 2

You are to report in writing to this registry concerning your execution of
this warrant and the results.

Your attention is drawn to the provisions of Part 4 of Chapter 1 9 of the
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules concerning -

Order of selling property;

Payment by enforcement debtor before sale;

Storage before sale;

Nature of sale;

Sale at best price obtainable;

Advertising;

Postponement of sale;

Accountability for, and distribution of, money received;
Reserve price provisions.

The known property of the enforcement debtor is as follows-

Land situated at 20 Topaz Crescent Lockyer Waters and
described as Lots 10 and 11 on RP 141793, County of
Cavendish, Parish of England, Title References 1 5227077 and
15227078 ("the land").

Improvements and chattels situated upon the land.
This warrant expires on f \*5 1

This enforcement warrant issued at 3 :2o am/pm on
NOTICE TO ENFORCEMENT CREDITOR

A copy of this warrant must be served on the enforcement debtor either
personally or by post.

NOTICES TO ENFORCEMENT DEBTOR

After being served with this enforcement warrant you must not sell,
transfer or otherwise deal with your principal place of residence. Any sale!
transfer .or other dealing in contravention of that requirement may be set
aside or restrained by the Court.

After service on you of this warrant you may apply to the Court to set it
aside or stay execution.

The filing of that application does not stay the operation of the warrant.

Senior, Registrar

ANNEXURE 1

1. The Australian Constitution Act

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

THE

CONSTITUTION

as altered
to

31 October

1993

An AGPS Press publication
Australian Government Publishing Service
Canberra

THE CONSTITUTION

As altered to 31 October 1993
(See Note / on Page 3 7)

TABLE OF PROVISIONS

Covering

Clause

1. Short title

2. Act to extend to the Queen's successors

3. Proclamation of Commonwealth

4. Commencement of Act

5. Operation of the Constitution and laws

6. Definitions

7. Repeal of Federal Council Act

8. Application of Colonial Boundaries Act

9. Constitution

CHAPTER I
THE PARLIAMENT
PART 1—GENERAL

Section

1. Legislative power

2. Governor-General

3. Salary of Governor-General

4. Provisions relating to Governor-General

5. Sessions of Parliament
Prorogation and dissolution
Summoning Parliament
First session

6. Yearly session of Parliament

PART II—THE SENATE

7. The Senate

8. Qualification of electors

9. Method of election of senators
Times and places

10. Application of State laws

11. Failure to choose senators

12. Issue of writs

13. Rotation of senators

14. Further provision for rotation

15. Casual vacancies

16. Qualifications of senator

17. Election of President

18. Absence of President

19. Resignation of senator

20. Vacancy by absence

21. Vacancy to be notified

22. Quorum

23. Voting in the Senate

2

The Constitution

TABLE OF PROVISIONS—twifiniitt/

PART III—THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

24. Constitution of House of Representatives

25. Provision as to races disqualified from voting

26. Representatives in first Parliament

27. Alteration of number of members

28. Duration of House of Representatives

29. Electoral divisions

30. Qualification of electors

31. Application of State laws

32. Writs for general election

33. Writs for vacancies

34. Qualifications of members

35. Election of Speaker

36. Absence of Speaker

37. Resignation of member

38. Vacancy by absence

39. Quorum

40. Voting in House of Representatives

PART IV—BOTH HOUSES OF THE PARLIAMENT

41. Right of electors of States

42. Oath or affirmation of allegiance

43. Member of one House ineligible for other

44. Disqualification

45. Vacancy on happening of disqualification

46. Penalty for sitting when disqualified

47. Disputed elections

48. Allowance to members

49. Privileges, &c. of Houses

50. Rules and orders

PART V-POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT

51. Legislative powers of the Parliament

52. Exclusive powers of the Parliament

53. Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation

54. Appropriation Bills

55. Tax Bill

56. Recommendation of money votes

57. Disagreement between the Houses

58. Royal assent to Bills
Recommendations by Governor-General

59. Disallowance by the Queen

60. Signification of Queen's pleasure on Bills reserved

CHAPTER II

THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT

61. Executive power

62. Federal Executive Council

63. Provisions referring to Governor-General

64. Ministers of State
Ministers to sit in Parliament

65. Number of Ministers

66. Salaries of Ministers

67. Appointment of civil servant

68. Command of naval and military forces

69. Transfer of certain departments

70. Certain powers of Governors to vest in Governor-General

The Constitution

3

TABLE OF PROVISIONS —continueil
CHAPTER III
THE JUDICATURE

71. Judicial power and Courts

72. Judges’ appointment, tenure and remuneration

73. Appellate jurisdiction of High Court

74. Appeal to Queen in Council

75. Original jurisdiction of High Court

76. Additional original jurisdiction

77. Power to define jurisdiction

78. Proceedings against Commonwealth or State

79. Number of judges

80. Trial by jury

CHAPTER IV
FINANCE AND TRADE

81. Consolidated Revenue Fund

82. Expenditure charged thereon

83. Money to be appropriated by law

84. Transfer of officers

85. Transfer of property of Stale

86. Customs, excise, and bounties

87. Revenue from customs and excise duties

88. Uniform duties of customs

89. Payment to States before uniform duties

90. Exclusive power over customs, excise, and bounties

91. Exceptions as to bounties

92. Trade within the Commonwealth to be free

93. Payment to Slates for five years after uniform tariffs

94. Distribution of surplus

95. Customs duties of Western Australia

96. Financial assistance to Stales

97. Audit

98. Trade and commerce includes navigation and State railways

99. Commonwealth not to give preference

100. Nor abridge right to use water

101. Inter-State Commission

102. Parliament may forbid preferences by Slate

103. Commissioners’ appointment, tenure, and remuneration

104. Saving of certain rates

105. Taking over public debts of States
105a. Agreements with respect to State debts

CHAPTER V

THE STATES

106. Saving of Constitutions

107. Saving of Power of State Parliaments

108. Saving of State laws

109. Inconsistency of laws

110. Provisions referring to Governor

111. States may surrender territory

1 12. Slates may levy charges for inspection laws

113. Intoxicating liquids

114. Slates may not raise forces

Taxation of property of Commonwealth or State

115. States not to coin money

116. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

4

The Constitution

TABLE OF PROVISIONS —continued

117. Rights of residents in States

118. Recognition of laws, &c. of Stales

119. Protection of States from invasion and violence

I 20. Custody of offenders against laws of the Commonwealth

CHAPTER VI
NEW STATES

121. New Slates may be admitted or established

122. Government of territories

123. Alteration of limits of Stales

124. Formation of new States

CHAPTER VII
MISCELLANEOUS

125. Seal of Government

126. Power to Her Majesty to authorise Governor-General to appoint deputies

127. Aborigines not to be counted in reckoning population (Repealed by No. 55, 1967,
s.3)

CHAPTER VIII

ALTERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

128. Mode of altering the Constitution

SCHEDULE

Oath and affirmation of allegiance

5

THE CONSTITUTION

(63 & 64 VICTORIA, CHAPTER 12)

An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia.

[9th July 1900]

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia,
Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty
God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth
under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
and under the Constitution hereby established:

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the
Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the
Queen:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by
and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority
of the same, as follows:—

1. This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act. 1

2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend
to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United
Kingdom.

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy
Council, to declare by proclamation 2 that, on and after a day therein
appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act,
the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland,
and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of
Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be
united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Common¬
wealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the
proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

4. The Commonwealth shall be established, and the Constitution
of the Commonwealth shall take effect, on and after the day so appointed.
But the Parliaments of the several colonies may at any time after tte
passing of this Act make any such laws, to come into operation bri

c

Short title.

Act to extend to
the Queen's
successors.

Proclamation
of Common¬
wealth.

Commence¬
ment of Act.

6

The Constitution

Operation of
the Constitution
and laws.

Definitions.

Repeal of
Federal
Council Act.
48 & 49 Viet,
c. 60.

Application of
Colonial
Boundaries Act.
58 & 59 Viet,
c. 54.

Constitution.

the day so appointed, as they might have made if the Constitution had
taken effect at the passing of this Act.

5. This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Common¬
wealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges,
and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth,
notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the
Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships
of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of
destination are in the Commonwealth. 3

6. “The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of
Australia as established under this Act.

“The States” shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales,
New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and
South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as
for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies
or territories as may be admitted into or established by the
Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth
shall be called “a State."

“Original States” shall mean such States as are parts of the Common¬
wealth at its establishment.

7. The Federal Council of Australasia Act, 1885, is hereby repealed,
but so as not to affect any laws passed by the Federal Council of
Australasia and in force at the establishment of the Commonwealth.

Any such law may be repealed 4 as to any State by the Parliament
of the Commonwealth, or as to any colony not being a State by the
Parliament thereof.

8. After the passing of this Act the Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895,
shall not apply to any colony which becomes a State of the Common¬
wealth; but the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing
colony for the purposes of that Act.

9. The Constitution of the Commonwealth shall be as follows:—

THE CONSTITUTION. 1

This Constitution is divided as follows:—

Chapter I.—The Parliament:

Part I.—General:

Part II.—The Senate:

Part III.—The House of Representatives:

Part IV.—Both Houses of the Parliament:

The Constitution

1

Part V.-

Chapter II.-

Chapter III.-

Chapter IV.-

Chapter V.-

Chapter VI.-

Chapter VII.-

Chapter VIII.-

The Schedule.

-Powers of the Parliament:
-The Executive Government:
-The Judicature:

-Finance and Trade:

-The States:

-New States:

-Miscellaneous:

-Alteration of the Constitution.

CHAPTER I.

THE PARLIAMENT.

part I.—GENERAL.

1. The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in
a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and
a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The
Parliament,” or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth.”

2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her
Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may
exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject
to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her
Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

3. There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated
Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-
General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides,
shall be ten thousand pounds.

The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his
continuance in office.

4. The provisions of this Constitution relating to the Governor-
General extend and apply to the Governor-General for the time being,
or such person as the Queen may appoint to administer the Government
of the Commonwealth; but no such person shall be entitled to receive
any salary from the Commonwealth in respect of any other office during
his administration of the Government of the Commonwealth.

5. The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the
sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time
to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and
may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.

Chap. I.

The Parliament.

Pan 1.
General.

Legislative

power.

Governor-

General.

Salary of

Governor-

General.

Provisions
relating to
Governor-
General.

Sessions of
Parliament.
Prorogation
and dissolution.

8

The Constitution

Summoning

Parliament.

First session.

Yearly session
of Parliament.

Part II.
The Senate.

The Senate.

Qualification of
electors.

Method of
election of
senators.

Times and
places.

After any general election the Parliament shall be summoned to
meet not later than thirty days after the day appointed for the return
of the writs.

The Parliament shall be summoned to meet not later than six months
after the establishment of the Commonwealth.

6. There shall be a session of the Parliament once at least in every
year, so that twelve months shall not intervene between the last sitting
of the Parliament in one session and its first sitting in the next session.

PART II.—THE SENATE.

7. The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly
chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise
provides, as one electorate.

But until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides,
the Parliament of the State of Queensland, if that State be an Original
State, may make laws dividing the State into divisions and determining
the number of senators to be chosen for each division, and in the absence
of such provision the State shall be one electorate.

Until the Parliament otherwise provides there shall be six senators
for each Original State. The Parliament may make laws increasing or
diminishing the number of senators for each State, 5 but so that equal
representation of the several Original States shall be maintained and
that no Original State shall have less than six senators.

The senators shall be chosen for a term of six years, and the names
of the senators chosen for each State shall be certified by the Governor
to the Governor-General.

8. The qualification of electors of senators shall be in each State
that which is prescribed by this Constitution, or by the Parliament, as
the qualification for electors of members of the House of Representatives;
but in the choosing of senators each elector shall vote only once.

9. The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing
the method of choosing senators, but so that the method shall be uniform
for all the States. Subject to any such law, the Parliament of each State
may make laws 6 prescribing the method of choosing the senators for
that State.

The Parliament of a State may make laws 6 for determining the times
and places of elections of senators for the State.

The Constitution

9

10. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, but subject to this ***£?'*
Constitution, the laws in force in each State, for the time being, relating
to elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the
State shall, as nearly as practicable, apply to elections of senators tor
the State.

11. The Senate may proceed to the despatch of business, notwith-
standing the failure of any State to provide for its representation m scnauirs
the Senate.

12. The Governor of any State may cause writs to be issued for i^cofwri,,
elections of senators for the State. In case of the dissolution of the Senate

the writs shall be issued within ten days from the proclamation ot such

dissolution.

13. As soon as may be after the Senate first meets, and after each Rm^nor
first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution thereo , t e ena e A |, cfc( j j,y no.
shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly 1 . 1907 .s. 2 .
equal in number as practicable; and the places of the senators oHhe
first class shall become vacant at the expiration of the-tbrnH/oaf three
years, and the places of those of the second class at the expiration
of the sixth year six years, from the beginning of their term of service;
and afterwards the places of senators shall become vacant at the
expiration of six years from the beginning of their term of service.

The election to fill vacant places shall be made in the year at-the
expiration of wh i e h within one year before the places are to become
vacant.

For the purposes of this section the term of service of a senator
shall be taken to begin on the first day of January July following the
day of his election, except in the cases of the first election and of the
election next after any dissolution of the Senate, when it shall be taken
to begin on the first day of Jamutry July preceding the day of his election.

14, Whenever the number of senators for a State is increased or for

diminished, the Parliament of the Commonwealth may make suen pr - rmalion
vision for the vacating of the places of senators for the State as it deems
necessary to maintain regularity in the rotation. 7

15.8 jf the place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration casual
of his term of service, the Houses of Parliament of the State for which
he was chosen, sitting and voting together, or, if there is only one House
of that Parliament, that House, shall choose a person to hold the place
until the expiration of the term. But if the Parliament of the ;State is
not in session when the vacancy is notified, the Governor of the State,
with the advice of the Executive Council thereof, may appoint a person
to hold the place until the expiration of fourteen days from the beginning

vacancies.

Substituted by No.
82, l*J77. s 2.

10

The Constitution

of the next session of the Parliament of the State or the expiration of
the term, whichever first happens.

Where a vacancy has at any time occurred in the place of a senator
chosen by the people of a State and, at the time when he was so chosen,
he was publicly recognized by a particular political party as being an
endorsed candidate of that party and publicly represented himself to
be such a candidate, a person chosen or appointed under this section
in consequence of that vacancy, or in consequence of that vacancy and
a subsequent vacancy or vacancies, shall, unless there is no member
of that party available to be chosen or appointed, be a member of that
party.

Where—

(a) in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, a member of
a particular political party is chosen or appointed to hold the
place of a senator whose place had become vacant; and

(b) before taking his seat he ceases to be a member of that party
(otherwise than by reason of the party having ceased to exist),

he shall be deemed not to have been so chosen or appointed and the
vacancy shall be again notified in accordance with section twenty-one
of this Constitution.

The name of any senator chosen or appointed under this section
shall be certified by the Governor of the State to the Governor-General.

If the place of a senator chosen by the people of a State at the
election of senators last held before the commencement of the
Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977 became vacant
before that commencement and, at that commencement, no person
chosen by the House or Houses of Parliament of the State, or appointed
by the Governor of the State, in consequence of that vacancy, or in
consequence of that vacancy and a subsequent vacancy or vacancies,
held office, this section applies as if the place of the senator chosen
by the people of the State had become vacant after that commencement.

A senator holding office at the commencement of the Constitution
Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977, being a senator appointed
by the Governor of a State in consequence of a vacancy that had at
any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of
the State, shall be deemed to have been appointed to hold the place
until the expiration of fourteen days after the beginning of the next
session of the Parliament of the State that commenced or commences
after he was appointed and further action under this section shall be
taken as if the vacancy in the place of the senator chosen by the people
of the State had occurred after that commencement.

Subject to the next succeeding paragraph, a senator holding office
at the commencement of the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual
Vacancies) 1977 who was chosen by the House or Houses of Parliament
of a State in consequence of a vacancy that had at any time occurred

The Constitution

11

in the place of a senator chosen by the people of the State shall be
deemed to have been chosen to hold office until the expiration of the
term of service of the senator elected by the people of the State.

If, at or before the commencement of the Constitution Alteration
(Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977, a law to alter the Constitution entitled
"Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1977" came into opera¬
tion, 9 a senator holding office at the commencement of that law who
was chosen by the House or Houses of Parliament of a State in con¬
sequence of a vacancy that had at any time occurred in the place of
a senator chosen by the people of the State shall be deemed to have
been chosen to hold office—

(a) if the senator elected by the people of the State had a term
of service expiring on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand
nine hundred and seventy-eight—until the expiration or dissolu¬
tion of the first House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved
after that law came into operation; or

(b) if the senator elected by the people of the State had a term
of service expiring on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand
nine hundred and eighty-one—until the expiration or dissolution
of the second House of Representatives to expire or be dissolved
after that law came into operation or, if there is an earlier dis¬
solution of the Senate, until that dissolution.

16. The qualifications of a senator shall be the same as those of
a member of the House of Representatives.

17. The Senate shall, before proceeding to the despatch of any other
business, choose a senator to be the President of the Senate; and as
often as the office of President becomes vacant the Senate shall again
choose a senator to be the President.

The President shall cease to hold his office if he ceases to be a
senator. He may be removed from office by a vote of the Senate, or
he may resign his office or his seat by writing addressed to the Governor-
General.

18. Before or during any absence of the President, the Senate may
choose a senator to perform his duties in his absence.

19. A senator may, by writing addressed to the President, or to the
Governor-General if there is no President or if the President is absent
from the Commonwealth, resign his place, which thereupon shall become
vacant.

20. The place of a senator shall become vacant if for two consecutive
months of any session of the Parliament he, without the permission
of the Senate, fails to attend the Senate.

Qualifications
of senator.

Election of
President.

Absence of
President.

Resignation of
senator.

Vacancy by
absence.

12

The Constitution

Vacancy lo be
notified.

Quorum.

Voting in the
Senate.

Part III.
House of
Representatives.

Constitution of
House of
Representatives.

Provision as to
races

disqualified
from voting.

21. Whenever a vacancy happens in the Senate, the President, or
if there is no President or if the President is absent from the
Commonwealth the Governor-General, shall notify the same to the
Governor of the State in the representation of which the vacancy has
happened.

22. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the presence of at least
one-third of the whole number of the senators shall be necessary to
constitute a meeting of the Senate for the exercise of its powers.

23. Questions arising in the Senate shall be determined by a majority
of votes, and each senator shall have one vote. The President shall in
all cases be entitled to a vote; and when the votes are equal the question
shall pass in the negative.

PART III.—THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

24. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members
directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number
of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number
of the senators.

The number of members chosen in the several States shall be in
proportion to the respective numbers of their people, and shall, until
the Parliament otherwise provides, be determined, whenever necessary,
in the following manner:—

(i.) A quota shall be ascertained by dividing the number of the
people of the Commonwealth, as shown by the latest statistics
of the Commonwealth, by twice the number of the senators:

(ii.) The number of members to be chosen in each State shall be
determined by dividing the number of the people of the State,
as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, by the
quota; and if on such division there is a remainder greater than
one-half of the quota, one more member shall be chosen in
the State.

But notwithstanding anything in this section, five members at least
shall be chosen in each Original State.

25. For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State
all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for
the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in
reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth,
persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted.

The Constitution

13

26. Notwithstanding anything in section twenty-four, the number
of members to be chosen in each State at the first election shall be
as follows:—

New South Wales
Victoria . . . .
Queensland . .
South Australia
Tasmania . . .

twenty-three;

twenty;

eight;

six;

five;

Provided that if Western Australia is an Original State, the numbers
shall be as follows:—

New South Wales
Victoria ....
Queensland . .
South Australia
Western Australia
Tasmania . . .

twenty-six;

twenty-three;

nine;

seven;

five;

five.

27. Subject to this Constitution, the Parliament may make laws for
increasing or diminishing the number of the members of the House
of Representatives.

28. Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years
from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner
dissolved by the Governor-General.

29. Until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides,
the Parliament of any State may make laws 10 for determining the divisions
in each State for which members of the House of Representatives may
be chosen, and the number of members to be chosen for each division.
A division shall not be formed out of parts of different States.

In the absence of other provision each State shall be one electorate.

30. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualification of
electors of members of the House of Representatives shall be in each
State that which is prescribed by the law of the State as the qualification
of electors of the more numerous House of Parliament of the State;
but in the choosing of members each elector shall vote only once.

31. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, but subject to this Con¬
stitution, the laws in force in each State for the time being relating
to elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the
State shall, as nearly as practicable, apply to elections in the State of
members of the House of Representatives.

Representatives
in first
Parliament.

Alteration of
number of
members.

Duration of
House of
Representatives.

Electoral

divisions.

Qualification of
electors.

Application of
State laws.

14

Writs for

general

election.

Writs for
vacancies.

Qualifications

of*members.

Election of
Speaker.

Absence of
Speaker.

Resignation of
member.

Vacancy by
absence.

The Constitution

32. The Governor-General in Council may cause writs to be issued
for general elections of members of the House of Representatives.

After the first general election, the writs shall be issued within ten
days from the expiry of a House of Representatives or from the pro¬
clamation of a dissolution thereof.

33. Whenever a vacancy happens in the House of Representatives,
the Speaker shall issue his writ for the election of a new member, or
if there is no Speaker or if he is absent from the Commonwealth the
Governor-General in Council may issue the writ.

34. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the qualifications of
a member of the House of Representatives shall be as follows:—

(i.) He must be of the full age of twenty-one years, and must be
an elector entitled to vote at the election of members of the
House of Representatives, or a person qualified to become such
elector, and must have been for three years at the least a resident
within the limits of the Commonwealth as existing at the time
when he is chosen:

(ii.) He must be a subject of the Queen, either natural-born or for
at least five years naturalized under a law of the United Kingdom,
or of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, or of
the Commonwealth, or of a State.

35. The House of Representatives shall, before proceeding to the
despatch of any other business, choose a member to be the Speaker
of the House, and as often as the office of Speaker becomes vacant
the House shall again choose a member to be the Speaker.

The Speaker shall cease to hold his office if he ceases to be a member.
He may be removed from office by a vote of the House, or he may
resign his office or his seat by writing addressed to the Governor-General.

36. Before or during any absence of the Speaker, the House of
Representatives may choose a member to perform his duties in his
absence.

37. A member may by writing addressed to the Speaker, or to the
Governor-General if there is no Speaker or if the Speaker is absent
from the Commonwealth, resign his place, which thereupon shall become
vacant.

38. The place of a member shall become vacant if for two consecutive
months of any session of the Parliament he, without the permission
of the House, fails to attend the House.

The Constitution

15

39. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the presence of at least
one-third of the whole number of the members of the House of
Representatives shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the House
for the exercise of its powers.

40. Questions arising in the House of Representatives shall be
determined by a majority of votes other than that of the Speaker. The
Speaker shall not vote unless the numbers are equal, and then he shall
have a casting vote.

PART IV.—BOTH HOUSES OF THE PARLIAMENT.

41. No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections
for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while
the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth
from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the
Commonwealth.

42. Every senator and every member of the House of Representa¬
tives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-
General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of
allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution.

43. A member of either House of the Parliament shall be incapable
of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the other House.

44. Any person who—

(i.) Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or
adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or
entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of
a foreign power: or

(ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under
sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punish¬
able under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by
imprisonment for one year or longer: or

(iii.) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent: or

(iv.) Holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension
payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the
revenues of the Commonwealth: or

(v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement
with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than
as a member and in common with the other members of an
incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five
persons:

shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member
of the House of Representatives.

Quorum.

Voting in
House of
Representatives.

Part IV.
Both Houses of
the Parliament.

Right of
electors of
States.

Oath or
affirmation of
allegiance.

Member of one
House

ineligible for
other.

Disqualifica¬

tion.

16

The Constitution

Vacancy on
happening of
disqualification.

Penally for
silling when
disqualified.

Disputed

elections.

Allowance 10
members.

Privileges. &c.
of Houses.

Rules and
orders.

But sub-section iv. does not apply to the office of any of the Queen’s
Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the Queen’s
Ministers for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half pay, or a pension,
by any person as an officer or member of the Queen’s navy or army,
or to the receipt of pay as an officer or member of the naval or military
forces of the Commonwealth by any person whose services are not
wholly employed by the Commonwealth.

45. If a senator or member of the House of Representatives—

(i.) Becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last
preceding section: or

(ii.) Takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or other¬
wise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors: or

(iii.) Directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or
honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for
services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State:

his place shall thereupon become vacant.

46. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared
by this Constitution to be incapable ot sitting as a senator or as a member
of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so
sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person
who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.

47. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting
the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representa¬
tives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and
any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined
by the House in which the question arises.

48. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each
member of the House of Representatives shall receive an allowance
of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which
he takes his seat.

49. The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of
the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees
of each House, shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and
until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of
the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the
establishment of the Commonwealth.

50. Each House of the Parliament may make rules and orders with
respect to—

(i.) The mode in which its powers, privileges, and immunities may
be exercised and upheld:

The Constitution

17

(ii.) The order and conduct of its business and proceedings either
separately or jointly with the other House.

PART V.—POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT.

51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power 11
to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
Commonwealth with respect to:—

(i.) Trade and commerce with other countries, and among the
States:

(ii.) Taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or
parts of States:

(iii.) Bounties on the production or export of goods, but so
that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the
Commonwealth:

(iv.) Borrowing money on the public credit of the Commonwealth:
(v.) Postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services:

(vi.) The naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and
of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute
and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth:

(vii.) Lighthouses, lightships, beacons and buoys:

(viii.) Astronomical and meteorological observations:

(ix.) Quarantine:

(x.) Fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits:

(xi.) Census and statistics:

(xii.) Currency, coinage, and legal tender:

(xiii.) Banking, other than State banking; also State banking ex¬
tending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the
incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money:

(xiv.) Insurance, other than State insurance; also State insurance
extending beyond the limits of the State concerned:

(xv.) Weights and measures:

(xvi.) Bills of exchange and promissory notes:

(xvii.) Bankruptcy and insolvency:

(xviii.) Copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade
marks:

(xix.) Naturalization and aliens:

(xx.) Foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations
formed within the limits of the Commonwealth:

(xxi.) Marriage:

Part V.
Powers of the
Parliament.

Legislative
powers of the
Parliament.

18

The Constitution

Inserted by
No. SI. 19-16.
%. 2 .

Altered by
No. 55. 1967.
S. 2.

(xxii.)

(xxiii.)

(xxiiiA.)

(xxiv.)

(xxv.)

(xxvi.)

(xxvii.)

(xxviii.)

(xxix.)

(xxx.)

(xxxi.)

(xxxii.)

(xxxiii.)

(xxxiv.)

(xxxv.)

(xxxvi.)

(xxxvii.)

Divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto,
parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants:

Invalid and old-age pensions:

The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions,
child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness
and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not
so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits
to students and family allowances:

The service and execution throughout the Commonwealth
of the civil and criminal process and the judgments of the
courts of the States:

The recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws,
the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings
of the States:

The people of any race, ethet^t^ai^he-ttboffginal race-tn
any Sta t e - ; for whom it is deemed necessary to make special
laws:

Immigration and emigration:
The influx of criminals:

External affairs:

The relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the
Pacific:

The acquisition of property on just terms from any State
or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament
has power to make laws:

The control of railways with respect to transport for the naval
and military purposes of the Commonwealth:

The acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways
of the State on terms arranged between the Commonwealth
and the State:

Railway construction and extension in any Stale with the
consent of that State:

Conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement
of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one
State:

Matters in respect of which this Constitution makes pro¬
vision until the Parliament otherwise provides:

Matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth
by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States,
but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose
Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt
the law:

The Constitution

19

(xxxviii.) The exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or
with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States
directly concerned, of any power which can at the
establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council
of Australasia:

(xxxix.) Matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by
this Constitution in the Parliament or in either House thereof,
or in the Government of the Commonwealth, or in the
Federal Judicature, or in any department or officer of the
Commonwealth.

52. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have exclusive
power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the
Commonwealth with respect to—

(i.) The seat of government of the Commonwealth, and all places
acquired by the Commonwealth for public purposes:

(ii.) Matters relating to any department of the public service the control
of which is by this Constitution transferred to the Executive
Government of the Commonwealth:

(iii.) Other matters declared by this Constitution to be within the
exclusive power of the Parliament.

53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing
taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall
not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation,
by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or
appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand
or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services
under the proposed law.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or
proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual
services of the Government.

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any
proposed charge or burden on the people.

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives
any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by
message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein.
And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of
such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power
with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

Exclusive
powers of ihe
Parliament.

Powers of
the Houses
in rcspcci of
legislation.

20

Appropriuiinn

Bills.

Tax Bill.

R^commenda-
lion of money
votes.

Disagreement
berween the
Houses.

The Constitution

54. The proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for
ihe ordinary annua! services of the Government shall deal only with
such appropriation.

55. Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of
taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall
be of no effect.

Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs
or ot excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only; but laws imposing
duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws
imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only.

56. A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of
revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropria¬
tion has in the same session been recommended by message of the
Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated.

57. If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and
the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to
which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval
of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next
session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments
which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the
Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which
the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may
dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously.
But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the
date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

If after such dissolution the House of Representatives again passes
the proposed law, with or without any amendments which have been
made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects
or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House
of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may convene
a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives.

The members present at the joint sitting may deliberate and shall
vote together upon the proposed law as last proposed by the House
of Representatives, and upon amendments, if any, which have been made
therein by one House and not agreed to by the other, and any such
amendments which are affirmed by an absolute majority of the total
number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives
shall be taken to have been carried, and if the proposed law, with the
amendments, if any, so carried is affirmed by an absolute majority of
the total number of the members of the Senate and House of
Representatives, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both

The Constitution

21

Houses of the Parliament, and shall be presented to the Governor-General
for the Queen’s assent.

58. When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament
is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent, he shall
declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that
he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that
he reserves the law for the Queen’s pleasure.

The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated
any proposed law so presented to him, and may transm't therewith any
amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with
the recommendation.

59. The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the
Governor-General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known
by the Governor-Genera! by speech or message to each of the Houses
of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the
day when the disallowance is so made known.

60. A proposed law reserved for the Queen’s pleasure shall not have
any force unless and until within two years from the day on which
it was presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent the
Governor-General makes known, by speech or message to each of the
Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the
Queen’s assent.

CHAPTER II.

THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT.

61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen
and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative,
and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and
of the laws of the Commonwealth.

62. There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the
Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the
members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-
General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during
his pleasure.

63. The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Governor-
General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor-
General acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

Royal assent id
Bills.

Rccomniunda-
lions by
Governor-
General.

Disallowance
by ihc Queen.

Signification of
Queen's
pleasure on
Bills reserved.

Chap. II.
The

Government.

Executive

power.

I : cdcral

Executive

Council.

Provisions
referring to
Governor-
General.

22

The Constitution

Minister* ol
Stale.

Minister* to Ml
in Parliament.

Number of
Ministers.

Salaries of
Ministers.

Appointment of
civil servant.

Command of
naval and
military forces.

Transfer of

certain

departments.

Certain powers
of Governors to
vest in
Governor-
General.

64. The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such
departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General
in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-
General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and
shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office
for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator
or a member of the House of Representatives.

65. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Ministers of State
shall not exceed seven in number, and shall hold such offices as the
Parliament prescribes, or, in the absence of provision, as the Governor-
General directs.

66. There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated
Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the Ministers
of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides,
shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a year.

67. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the appointment and
removal of all other officers of the Executive Government of the
Commonwealth shall be vested in the Governor-General in Council,
unless the appointment is delegated by the Governor-General in Council
or by a law of the Commonwealth to some other authority.

68. The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the
Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s
representative.

69. On a date or dates to be proclaimed by the Governor-General
after the establishment of the Commonwealth the following departments
of the public service in each State shall become transferred to the
Commonwealth:—

Posts, telegraphs, and telephones:

Naval and military defence:

Lighthouses, lightships, beacons, and buoys:

Quarantine.

But the departments of customs and of excise in each State shall
become transferred to the Commonwealth on its establishment.

70. In respect of matters which, under this Constitution, pass to the
Executive Government of the Commonwealth, all powers and functions
which at the establishment of the Commonwealth are vested in the
Governor of a Colony, or in the Governor of a Colony with the advice

The Constitution

23

of his Executive Council, or in any authority of a Colony, shall vest
in the Governor-General, or in the Governor-General in Council, or
in the authority exercising similar powers under the Commonwealth,
as the case requires.

CHAPTER III.

THE JUDICATURE.

71. The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in
a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia,
and in such other federal courts as the Parliament creates, and in such
other courts as it invests with federal jurisdiction. The High Court shall
consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other Justices, not less than
two, as the Parliament prescribes.

72. The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created
by the Parliament—

(i.) Shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council:

(ii.) Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council,
on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same
session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved
misbehaviour or incapacity:

(iii.) Shall receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix;
but the remuneration shall not be diminished during their
continuance in office.

The appointment of a Justice of the High Court shall be for a term
expiring upon his attaining the age of seventy years, and a person shall
not be appointed as a Justice of the High Court if he has attained that
age.

The appointment of a Justice of a court created by the Parliament
shall be for a term expiring upon his attaining the age that is, at the
time of his appointment, the maximum age for Justices of that court
and a person shall not be appointed as a Justice of such a court if
he has attained the age that is for the time being the maximum age
for Justices of that court.

Subject to this section, the maximum age for Justices of any court
created by the Parliament is seventy years.

The Parliament may make a law fixing an age that is less than
seventy years as the maximum age for Justices of a court created by
the Parliament and may at any time repeal or amend such a law, but

Chap. III.
The

Judicature.

Judicial power
and Courts.

Judges'
appointment,
tenure and
remuneration.

Paragraph
added by No. 83,
1977. s. 2.

Paragraph
added by No. 83,
1977. s 2.

Paragraph
added by No. 83.
1977. s. 2.

Paragraph
added by No. 83.
1977.5. 2.

24

The Co ns litu lion

Parjgrjph
added hj N<i B.V
I*>77.». 2.

Paragraph
aJJed by Nii. XJ.
1977. v 2.

Paragraph
added by No. S3.
I*>77. ,. 2.

Appellate
jurisdiciion of
High Court.

Appeal to
Queen in
Council.

any such repeal or amendment does not affect the term of office of
a Justice under an appointment made before the repeal or amendment.

A Justice of the High Court or of a court created by the Parliament
may resign his office by writing under his hand delivered to the Governor-
General.

Nothing in the provisions added to this section by the Constitution
Alteration (Retirement of Judges) 1977 affects the continuance of a person
in office as a Justice of a court under an appointment made before
the commencement of those provisions.

A reference in this section to the appointment of a Justice of the
High Court or of a court created by the Parliament shall be read as
including a reference to the appointment of a person who holds office
as a Justice of the High Court or of a court created by the Parliament
to another office of Justice of the same court having a different status
or designation.

73. The High Court shall have jurisdiction, with such exceptions
and subject to such regulations as the Parliament prescribes, to hear
and determine appeals from all judgments, decrees, orders, and
sentences—

(i.) Of any Justice or Justices exercising the original jurisdiction
of the High Court:

(ii.) Of any other federal court, orcourt exercising federal jurisdiction;
or of the Supreme Court of any State, or of any other court
of any State from which at the establishment of the Common¬
wealth an appeal lies to the Queen in Council:

(iii.) Of the Inter-State Commission, but as to questions of law only:

and the judgment of the High Court in all such cases shall be final
and conclusive.

But no exception or regulation prescribed by the Parliament shall
prevent the High Court from hearing and determining any appeal from
the Supreme Court of a State in any matter in which at the establishment
of the Commonwealth an appeal lies from such Supreme Court to the
Queen in Council.

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the conditions of and
restrictions on appeals to the Queen in Council from the Supreme Courts
of the several States shall be applicable to appeals from them to the
High Court.

74. No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from
a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising,

The Constitution

25

as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth
and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the
Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court
shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by
Her Majesty in Council.

The High Court may so certify if satisfied that for any special reason
the certificate should be granted, and thereupon an appeal shall lie to
Her Majesty in Council on the question without further leave.

Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair
any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of
Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High
Court to Her Majesty in Council. The Parliament may make laws limiting
the matters in which such leave may be asked, 13 but proposed laws
containing any such limitation shall be reserved by the Governor-General
for Her Majesty’s pleasure.

75. In all matters—

(i.) Arising under any treaty:

(ii.) Affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries:

(iii.) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued
on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:

(iv.) Between States, or between residents of different States, or
between a State and a resident of another State:

(v.) In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction
is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth:

the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.

76. The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction
on the High Court in any matter—

(i.) Arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation:

(ii.) Arising under any laws made by the Parliament:

(iii.) Of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction:

(iv.) Relating to the same subject-matter claimed under the laws
of different States.

77. With respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last two
sections the Parliament may make laws—

(i.) Defining the jurisdiction of any federal court other than the
High Court:

(ii.) Defining the extent to which the jurisdiction of any federal court
shall be exclusive of that which belongs to or is invested in
the courts of the States:

Original
jurisdiction of
High Coun.

Additional

original

jurisdiction.

Power to deline
jurisdiction.

26

The Constitution

Proceedings
against Com-
monwealih or
Slate.

Number of
judges.

Trial by jury.

Chap. IV.
Finance and
Trade.

Consolidated
Revenue Fund.

Expenditure

charged

thereon.

Money to be
appropriated
by law.

Transfer of
officers.

(iii.) Investing any court of a State with federal jurisdiction.

78. The Parliament may make laws conferring rights to proceed
against the Commonwealth or a State in respect of matters within the
limits of the judicial power.

79. The federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such
number of judges as the Parliament prescribes.

80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the
Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in
the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was
not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place
or places as the Parliament prescribes.

CHAPTER IV.

FINANCE AND TRADE.

81. All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive
Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue
Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in
the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this
Constitution.

82. The costs, charges, and expenses incident to the collection,
management, and receipt of the Consolidated Revenue Fund shall form
the first charge thereon; and the revenue of the Commonwealth shall
in the first instance be applied to the payment of the expenditure of
the Commonwealth.

83. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Common¬
wealth except under appropriation made by law.

But until the expiration of one month after the first meeting of the
Parliament the Governor-General in Council may draw from the
Treasury and expend such moneys as may be necessary for the
maintenance of any department transferred to the Commonwealth and
for the holding of the first elections for the Parliament.

84. When any department of the public service of a State becomes
transferred to the Commonwealth, all officers of the department shall
become subject to the control of the Executive Government of the
Commonwealth.

The Constitution

21

Any such officer who is not retained in the service of the Common¬
wealth shall, unless he is appointed to some other office of equal
emolument in the public service of the State, be entitled to receive from
the State any pension, gratuity, or other compensation, payable under
the law of the State on the abolition of his office.

Any such officer who is retained in the service of the Common¬
wealth shall preserve all his existing and accruing rights, and shall be
entitled to retire from office at the time, and on the pension or retiring
allowance, which would be permitted by the law of the State if his
service with the Commonwealth were a continuation of his service with
the State. Such pension or retiring allowance shall be paid to him by
the Commonwealth; but the State shall pay to the Commonwealth a
part thereof, to be calculated on the proportion which his term of service
with the State bears to his whole term of service, and for the purpose
of the calculation his salary shall be taken to be that paid to him by
the State at the time of the transfer.

Any officer who is, at the establishment of the Commonwealth, in
the public service of a State, and who is, by consent of the Governor
of the State with the advice of the Executive Council thereof, transferred
to the public service of the Commonwealth, shall have the same rights
as if he had been an officer of a department transferred to the Common¬
wealth and were retained in the service of the Commonwealth.

85. When any department of the public service of a State is transferred
to the Commonwealth—

(i.) All property of the State of any kind, used exclusively in con¬
nexion with the department, shall become vested in the Common¬
wealth; but, in the case of the departments controlling customs
and excise and bounties, for such time only as the Governor-
General in Council may declare to be necessary:

(ii.) The Commonwealth may acquire any property of the State,
of any kind used, but not exclusively used in connexion with
the department; the value thereof shall, if no agreement can
be made, be ascertained in, as nearly as may be, the manner
in which the value of land, or of an interest in land, taken by
the State for public purposes is ascertained under the law of
the State in force at the establishment of the Commonwealth:

(iii.) The Commonwealth shall compensate the State for the value
of any property passing to the Commonwealth under this section;
if no agreement can be made as to the mode of compensation,
it shall be determined under laws to be made by the Parliament:

(iv.) The Commonwealth shall, at the date of the transfer, assume
the current obligations of the State in respect of the department
transferred.

Transfer of
properly of
Stale.

28

The Constitution

Uniform (Julies
of customs.

Payment to
Stales before
uniform duties.

Exclusive
power over
customs, excise,
and bounties.

Exceptions as
to bounties.

86. On the establishment of the Commonwealth, the collection and
control of duties of customs and of excise, and the control of the payment
of bounties, shall pass to the Executive Government of the Common¬
wealth.

87. During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Com¬
monwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, of
the net revenue of the Commonwealth from duties of customs and of
excise not more than one-fourth shall be applied annually by the
Commonwealth towards its expenditure.

The balance shall, in accordance with this Constitution, be paid to
the several States, or applied towards the payment of interest on debts
of the several States taken over by the Commonwealth.

88. Uniform duties of customs shall be imposed within two years
after the establishment of the Commonwealth.

89. Until the imposition of uniform duties of customs—

(i.) The Commonwealth shall credit to each State the revenues
collected therein by the Commonwealth.

(ii.) The Commonwealth shall debit to each State—

(a) The expenditure therein of the Commonwealth incurred
solely for the maintenance or continuance, as at the time
of transfer, of any department transferred from the State
to the Commonwealth;

(b) The proportion of the State, according to the number
of its people, in the other expenditure of the Common¬
wealth.

(iii.) The Commonwealth shall pay to each State month by month
the balance (if any) in favour of the State.

90. On the imposition of uniform duties of customs the power of
the Parliament to impose duties of customs and of excise, and to grant
bounties on the production or export of goods, shall become exclusive.

On the imposition of uniform duties of customs all laws of the several
States imposing duties of customs or of excise, or offering bounties on
the production or export of goods, shall cease to have effect, but any
grant of or agreement for any such bounty lawfully made by or under
the authority of the Government of any State shall be taken to be good
if made before the thirtieth day of June, one thousand eight hundred
and ninety-eight, and not otherwise.

91. Nothing in this Constitution prohibits a State from granting any
aid to or bounty on mining for gold, silver, or other metals, nor from

The Constitution

29

granting, with the consent of both Houses of the Parliament of the
Commonwealth expressed by resolution, any aid to or bounty on the
production or export of goods.

92. On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, Trade wiihin
and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage
or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free. free.

But notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, goods imported
before the imposition of uniform duties of customs into any State, or
into any Colony which, whilst the goods remain therein, becomes a
State, shall, on thence passing into another State within two years after
the imposition of such duties, be liable to any duty chargeable on the
importation of such goods into the Commonwealth, less any duty paid
in respect of the goods on their importation.

93. During the first five years after the imposition of uniform duties Payment to
of customs, and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides—

(i.) The duties of customs chargeable on goods imported into a uniform tariffs.
State and afterwards passing into another State for consumption,
and the duties of excise paid on goods produced or manufactured
in a State and afterwards passing into another State for
consumption, shall be taken to have been collected not in the
former but in the latter State:

(ii.) Subject to the last subsection, the Commonwealth shall credit
revenue, debit expenditure, and pay balances to the several States
as prescribed for the period preceding the imposition of uniform
duties of customs.

94. After five years from the imposition of uniform duties of customs, Distribution of
the Parliament may provide, on such basis as it deems fair, for the surplus
monthly payment to the several States of all surplus revenue of the
Commonwealth.

95. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Parliament customs duties
of the State of Western Australia, if that State be an Original State, J r u ^“,5* rn
may, during the first five years after the imposition of uniform duties

of customs, impose duties of customs on goods passing into that State
and not originally imported from beyond the limits of the Common¬
wealth; and such duties shall be collected by the Commonwealth.

But any duty so imposed on any goods shall not exceed during the
first of such years the duty chargeable on the goods under the law
of Western Australia in force at the imposition of uniform duties, and
shall not exceed during the second, third, fourth, and fifth of such years
respectively, four-fifths, three-fifths, two-fifths, and one-fifth of such latter
duty, and all duties imposed under this section shall cease at the expiration
of the fifth year after the imposition of uniform duties.

30

Finunciul
assistance to
States.

Audit.

Trade and
commerce
includes
navigation and
Slate railways.

Commonwealth
not to give
preference.

Nor abridge
right to use
water.

Inter-State

Commission.

Parliament
may forbid
preferences
by State.

The Constitution

If at any time during the five years the duty on any goods under
this section is higher than the duty imposed by the Commonwealth
on the importation of the like goods, then such higher duty shall be
collected on the goods when imported into Western Australia from
beyond the limits of the Commonwealth.

96. During a period of ten years after the establishment of the
Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides,
the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms
and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

97. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the laws in force in
any Colony which has become or becomes a State with respect to the
receipt of revenue and the expenditure of money on account of the
Government of the Colony, and the review and audit of such receipt
and expenditure, shall apply to the receipt of revenue and the expenditure
of money on account of the Commonwealth in the State in the same
manner as if the Commonwealth, or the Government or an officer of
the Commonwealth, were mentioned whenever the Colony, or the
Government or an officer of the Colony, is mentioned.

98. The power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to trade
and commerce extends to navigation and shipping, and to railways the
property of any State.

99. The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade,
commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof
over another State or any part thereof.

100. The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade
or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein
to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.

101. There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers
of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary
for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the
provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of
all laws made thereunder.

102. The Parliament may by any law with respect to trade or com¬
merce forbid, as to railways, any preference or discrimination by any
State, or by any authority constituted under a State, if such preference
or discrimination is undue and unreasonable, or unjust to any State;
due regard being had to the financial responsibilities incurred by any
State in connexion with the construction and maintenance of its railways.
But no preference or discrimination shall, within the meaning of this
section, be taken to be undue and unreasonable, or unjust to any State,
unless so adjudged by the Inter-State Commission.

The Constitution

31

103. The members of the Inter-State Commission—

(i.) Shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council:

(ii.) Shall hold office for seven years, but may be removed within
that time by the Governor-General in Council, on an address
from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session praying
for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or
incapacity:

(iii.) Shall receive such remuneration as the Parliament may fix;
but such remuneration shall not be diminished during their
continuance in office.

104. Nothing in this Constitution shall render unlawful any rate for
the carriage of goods upon a railway, the property of a State, if the
rate is deemed by the Inter-State Commission to be necessary for the
development of the territory of the State, and if the rate applies equally
to goods within the State and to goods passing into the State from
other States.

105. The Parliament may take over from the States their public

debts as.existing at - the e s t a bli s hm e n t- o ^ the Commonwealth , or a

proportion thereof according to the respective numbers of their people
as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, and may convert,
renew, or consolidate such debts, or any part thereof; and the States
shall indemnify the Commonwealth in respect of the debts taken over,
and thereafter the interest payable in respect of the debts shall be deducted
and retained from the portions of the surplus revenue of the Common¬
wealth payable to the several States, or if such surplus is insufficient,
or if there is no surplus, then the deficiency or the whole amount shall
be paid by the several States.

105a.—(1.) The Commonwealth may make agreements with the
States with respect to the public debts of the States, including—

(a) the taking over of such debts by the Commonwealth;

( b ) the management of such debts;

(c) the payment of interest and the provision and management of
sinking funds in respect of such debts;

(cf) the consolidation, renewal, conversion, and redemption of such
debts;

( e ) the indemnification of the Commonwealth by the States in
respect of debts taken over by the Commonwealth; and

(f) the borrowing of money by the States or by the Commonwealth,
or by the Commonwealth for the States.

(2.) The Parliament may make laws for validating any such agree¬
ment made before the commencement of this section.

Commissioners'
appointment,
tenure, and
remuneration.

Saving of
certain rates.

Taking over
public debts of
States.

Altered by No. 3.
1*»10. s. 2.

Agreements
with respect to
Slate debts.

Inserted by No. I,
1929. s. 2.

32

The Constiiuiiofi

Chap. V.
The Slate*.

Saving of
Consiilulions.

Saving of
Power of Slate
Parliament,

Saving of Stale
laws.

(3.) The Parliament may make laws for the carrying out by the
parties thereto of any such agreement.

(4.) Any such agreement may be varied or rescinded by the parties
thereto.

(5.) Every such agreement and any such variation thereof shall be
binding upon the Commonwealth and the States parties thereto notwith¬
standing anything contained in this Constitution or the Constitution of
the several States or in any law of the Parliament of the Common¬
wealth or of any State.

(6.) The powers conferred by this section shall not be construed
as being limited in any way by the provisions of section one hundred
and five of this Constitution.

CHAPTER V.

THE STATES.

106. The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall,
subject to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the
Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State,
as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution
of the State.

107. Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become
or becomes a State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution exclusively
vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from the
Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the Common¬
wealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the
case may be.

108. Every law in force in a Colony which has become or becomes
a State, and relating to any matter within the powers of the Parliament
of the Commonwealth, shall, subject to this Constitution, continue in
force in the State; and, until provision is made in that behalf by the
Parliament of the Commonwealth, the Parliament of the State shall
have such powers of alteration and of repeal in respect of any such
law as the Parliament of the Colony had until the Colony became a
State.

The Constitution

33

109. When a law of a Stale is inconsistent with a law of the Common¬
wealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of
the inconsistency, be invalid.

110. The provisions of this Constitution relating to the Governor
of a State extend and apply to the Governor for the time being of the
State, or other chief executive officer or administrator of the government
of the State.

111. The Parliament of a State may surrender any part of the State
to the Commonwealth; and upon such surrender, and the acceptance
thereof by the Commonwealth, such part of the State shall become
subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.

112. After uniform duties of customs have been imposed, a State
may levy on imports or exports, or on goods passing into or out of
the State, such charges as may be necessary for executing the inspection
laws of the State; but the net produce of all charges so levied shall
be for the use of the Commonwealth; and any such inspection laws
may be annulled by the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

113. All fermented, distilled, or other intoxicating liquids passing
into any State or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage,
shall be subject to the laws of the State as if such liquids had been
produced in the State.

114. A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of
the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or
impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Common¬
wealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of
any kind belonging to a State.

115. A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold
and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing
any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting
the free exercise of any religion, and no religious lest shall be required
as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Common¬
wealth.

117. A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject
in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not
be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident
in such other State.

Inconsistency
of laws.

Provisions
referring in
Governor.

Slates may

.surrender

territory.

Stales may levy
charges for
inspection laws.

Intoxicating

liquids.

Stales may not
raise forces.
Taxation of
property of
Commonwealth
or State.

States not to
coin money.

Commonwealth
not to legislate
in respect of
religion.

Rights of
residents in
States.

V

34

Recugnuiun ol
laws. &c. of
Slates.

Protection of
Slates from
invasion and
violence.

Custody of
offenders
against laws of
the Common¬
wealth.

Chap. VI.
New Stales.

New Stales
may be
admitted or
established.

Government of
territories.

Alteration of
limits of Stales.

Formation of
new States.

The Constitution

118. Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Common¬
wealth to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial
proceedings of every State.

119. The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion
and, on the application of the Executive Government of the State, against
domestic violence.

120. Every State shall make provision for the detention in its prisons
of persons accused or convicted of offences against the laws of the
Commonwealth, and for the punishment of persons convicted of such
offences, and the Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws
to give effect to this provision.

CHAPTER VI.

NEW STATES.

121. The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish
new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or
impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation
in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.

122. The Parliament may make laws for the government of any
territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Common¬
wealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority
of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the
Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in
either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which
it thinks fit.

123. The Parliament of the Commonwealth may, with the consent
of the Parliament of a State, and the approval of the majority of the
electors of the State voting upon the question, increase, diminish, or
otherwise alter the limits of the State, upon such terms and conditions
as may be agreed on, and may, with the like consent, make provision
respecting the effect and operation of any increase or diminution or
alteration of territory in relation to any State affected.

124. A new State may be formed by separation of territory from
a State, but only with the consent of the Parliament thereof, and a new
State may be formed by the union of two or more States or parts of
States, but only with the consent of the Parliaments of the States affected.

The Constitution

35

CHAPTER VII.

MISCELLANEOUS.

125. The seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be
determined by the Parliament, and shall be within territory which shall
have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth, and shall be
vested in and belong to the Commonwealth, and shall be in the State
of New South Wales, and be distant not less than one hundred miles
from Sydney.

Such territory shall contain an area of not less than one hundred
square miles, and such portion thereof as shall consist of Crown lands
shall be granted to the Commonwealth without any payment therefor.

The Parliament shall sit at Melbourne until it meet at the seat of
Government.

126. The Queen may authorise the Governor-General to appoint
any person, or any persons jointly or severally, to be his deputy or
deputies 14 within any part of the Commonwealth, and in that capacity
to exercise during the pleasure of the Governor-General such powers
and functions of the Governor-General as he thinks fit to assign to
such deputy or deputies, subject to any limitations expressed or directions
given by the Queen; but the appointment of such deputy or deputies
shall not affect the exercise by the Governor-General himself of any
power or function.

15* * * * * * * *

CHAPTER VIII.

ALTERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

128. 1 This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following
manner:—

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an
absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than
two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses
the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to
the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House
of Representatives.

Chap. VM.
Miscellaneous.

Seal of
Governmem.

Power to Her

Majesty to

authorise

Governor-

General to

appoint

deputies.

Section 127
repealed by No.
55. 1967. s. J.

Chap. VIII.
Alteration of
Constitution.

Mode of
altering the
Constitution.

Paragraph altered
by No. 84. 1977.

36

The Constitution

Paragraph allured
by No. 84. 1977.

But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute
majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it
with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree,
and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned House in
the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute
majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed
to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass
it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House
will not agree, the Governor-General may submit the proposed law as
last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without
any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors
in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the
House of Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall
be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the
qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives
becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the
electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in
any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting
approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting
also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-
General for the Queen’s assent.

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any
Slate in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of
representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing,
diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner
affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall
become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve
the proposed law.

Paragraph
adJeil by Ni>. 84.
i>m. >.

In this section, “Territory" means any territory referred to in section
one hundred and twenty-two of this Constitution in respect of which
there is in force a law allowing its representation in the House of
Representatives.

The Constitution

37

SCHEDULE.

OATH.

I. A.ft., do swear that I will he faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria,
Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

AFFIRMATION.

I, AH., do solemnly and sincerely allirm and declare lhal I will be faithful and bear true allegiance
to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

(NOTE.— The name of (he King or Queen of I he United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
for the time being is to be substituted from lime to time .)

NOTES

l. The Constitution as printed above contains all the alterations of the Constitution
made up to 3 I October 1993. Particulars of the Acts by which the Constitution
was altered are as follows:

Number Date of

Act and year Assent

Constitution Alteration (Senate Elections) 1906 1,1907 3 Apr 1907

Constitution Alteration (State Debts) 1909 3,1910 6Augl9l0

Constitution Alteration (State Debts) 1928 1,1929 13 Feb 1929

Constitution Alteration (Social Services) 1946 . 81.1946 19 Dec 1946

Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 . 55,1967 10 Aug 1967

Constitution Alteration (Senute Casual Vacancies) 1977 . . . 82.1977 29 July 1977

Constitution Alteration (Retirement of Judges) 1977 . . . . 83,1977 29 July 1977

Constitution Alteration (Referendums) 1977 . 84,1977 29 July 1977

2. Covering Clause 3—The Proclamation under covering clause 3 was made on 17
September 1900 and is published in Gazelle 1901, p, 1 and infra p. 41.

3. Covering Clause 5 —Qf the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, infra p. 47.

4. Covering Clause 7—The following Acts have repealed Acts passed by the Federal
Council of Australasia:

Defence Act 1903 (No. 20, 1903), s. 6.

Pearl Fisheries Act 1952 (No. 8, 1952), s. 3. (Pearl Fisheries Act 1952 repealed
by Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968, s. 3.)

Sendee and Execution of Process Act 1901 (No. 11. 1901), s. 2. (S. 2 subsequently
repealed by Service and Execution of Process Act 1963, s. 3.)

5. S. 7—The number of senators for each State was increased to 12 by (he Representation
Act 1983. s. 3.

6. S. 9—The following State Acts have been passed in pursuance of the powers conferred
by s. 9:

38

The Constitution

NOTES —continued

State

Number Short title

How alfected

New South Wales

No. 73. 1900

Federal Elections Act,
1900

Ss. 2, 3. 4, 5 and 6 and
the Schedule repealed
by No. 9, 1903; wholly
repealed by No. 41,
1912

No. 9. 1903

Senators’ Elections Act.
1903

Amended by No. 75,
1912 and No. 112,
1984

No. 75, 1912

Senators' Elections

(Amendment) Act, 1912

(Still in force)

No. 112. 1984

Senators’ Elections

(Amendment) Act, 1984

(Still in force)

Victoria . . .

. No. 1715

Federal Elections A ct
1900

Repealed by No. 1860

No. I860

Senate Elections (Times
and Places) Act 1903

Repealed by No. 2723

No. 2399

Senate Elections (Times
and Places) Act 1912

Repealed by No. 2723

No. 2723

Senate Elections (Times
and Places) Act 1915

Repealed by No. 3769

No. 3769

Senute Elections (Times
and Places) Act 1928

Repealed by No. 6365

No. 6365

Senate Elections Act 1958

Amended by No.
10108

No. 10108

Senate Elections (Amend¬
ment) Act, 1984

(Still in force)

Queensland . . .

64 Vic. No. 25

The Parliament of the
Commonwealth Elections
Act and The Elections Acts
1885 /o 1898 Amendment
Act of 1900

Operation exhausted

3 Edw. VII.

The Election of Senators

Repealed by 9 Eliz. 11.

No. 6

Act of 1903

No. 20

9 Eliz. II. No. 20

The Senate Elections A ct of
I960

Amended by No. 79,
1984

No. 79. 1984

Senate Elections Act
Amendment Act 1984

(Still in force)

South Australia . .

No. 834

The Election of Senators
Act. 1903

Amended by No. 4.
1978, No. 37. 1981
and No. 80, 1984

No. 4. 1978

The Election of Senators
Act Amendment Act,
1978

(Still in force)

No. 37. 1981

Election of Senators Act
Amendment Act, 1981

(Still in force)

No. 80. 1984

Election of Senators Act
Amendment Act. 1984

(Still in force)

Western Australia

No. II, 1903

Election of Senators Act ,
1903

Amended by No. 27,
1912 and No. 86, 1984

No. 27. 1912

Election of Senators
Amendment Act, 1912

(Still in force)

No. 86. 1984

Election of Senators
Amendment Act 1984

(Still in force)

The Constitution

39

NOTES-— continued

Stale

Number

Short title

How affected

Tasmania . .

. . 64 Vic. No. 59

The Federal Elections
Act, 1900

Repealed by 26 Geo.
V. No. 3

3 Edw. VII.

No. 5

The Election of Senators
Act, 1903

Repealed by 26 Geo.
V. No. 3

26 Geo. V.

No. 3

Senate Elections Act 1935

Amended by No. 63,
1984

No. 63. 1984

Senate Elections Amend¬
ment Act 1984

(Still in force)

7. S. 14— For the provisions applicable upon the increase in the number of senators
to 12 made by the Representation Act 1983, see s. 3 of that Act.

8. Section 15, before its substitution by the Constitution Alteration (Senate Casual
Vacancies) 1977, provided as follows:

"15. If the place of a senator becomes vacant before the expiration of his term
of service, the Houses of Parliament of the State for which he was chosen shall,
sitting and voting together, choose a person to hold the place until the expiration
of the term, or until the election of a successor as hereinafter provided, whichever
first happens. But if the Houses of Parliament of the State are not in session at
the time when the vacancy is notified, the Governor of the State, with the advice
of the Executive Council thereof, may appoint a person to hold the place until
the expiration of fourteen days after the beginning of the next session of the Parliament
of the State, or until the election of a successor, whichever first happens.

“At the next general election of members of the House of Representatives, or
at the next election of senators for the State, whichever first happens, a successor
shall, if the term has not then expired, be chosen to hold the place from the date
of his election until the expiration of the term.

“The name of any senator so chosen or appointed shall be certified by the Governor
of the State to the Governor-General."

9. S. 15—The proposed law to alter the Constitution entitled “Constitution Alteration
(Simultaneous Elections) 1977" was submitted to the electors in each State of (he
Commonwealth on 21 May 1977: it was not approved by a majority of all (he
electors voting in a majority of the States. See Gazette 1977, No. SI00, p. I.

10. S. 29—The following State Acts were passed in pursuance of the powers conferred
by s. 29, but ceased to be in force upon the enactment of the Commonwealth Electoral

Act 1902:

Stale

Number

Short title

New South
Wales

No. 73. 1900

Federal Elections Act. 1900

Victoria

No. 1667

Federal House of Representatives Victorian Electorates Act
1900

Queensland

64 Vic. No. 25

The Parliament of the Commonwealth Elections Act and The
Elections Acts 1885 to 1898 Amendment Act of 1900

Western

Australia

64 Vic. No. 6

Federal House of Representatives Western Australian
Electorates Act. 1900

40

The Constitution

NOTES —continued

11. S. 5 l —The following Imperial Acts extended the legislative powers of the Parliament:
Whaling Industry (Regulations) Act, 1934, s. 15

Geneva Convention Act, 1937, s. 2
Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, s. 5
Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1940, s. 3.

12. S. 5 I (xxxvii.)—The following Acts have been passed by the Parliaments of the
States to refer matters to the Parliament under section 5 I (xxxvii.):

State

Number

Short title

How affected

New South Wales

. No. 65, 1915

Commonwealth Powers
(War) Act. 1915

Expired 9 Jan 1921; see
s. 5

No. 33. 1942

Commonwealth Powers
Act. 1942

Expired; see s. 4

No. 18, 1943

Commonwealth Powers
Act, 1943

Expired; see s. 4

No. 48, 1983

Commonwealth Powers
(Meat Inspection) Act,
1983

(Still in force)

Victoria . . . .

No. 3108

Commonwealth Powers
(Air Navigation) Act 1920

Repealed by No. 4502

No. 3658

Commonwealth Arrange¬
ments Act 1928 (Part III)

Repealed by No. 4502

No. 4009

Debt Conversion Agree¬
ment Act 1931 (No. 2)

(Still in force)

No. 4950

Commonwealth Powers
Act 1943

Not proclaimed to
come into operation
and cannot now be so
proclaimed

Queensland . . .

1 2 Geo. V.

The Commonwealth

Repealed by l Geo. VI.

No. 30

Powers (Air Navigation)
Act of 1921 -

No. 8

22 Geo. V.

The Com mon wealth

Repealed by No. 46.

No. 30

Legislative Power Act,
1931

1983

7 Geo. VI.

No. 19

Commonwealth Powers
Act 1943

Expired; see s. 4

14 Geo. VI.

No. 2

The Commonwealth

Powers (Air Transport)
Act of 1950

(Still in force)

South Australia . .

No. 1469, 1921

Commonwealth Powers
(Air Navigation) Act,
1921

Repealed by No. 2352,
1937

No. 2061, 1931

Commonwealth Legisla¬
tive Power Act, 1931

(Still in force)

No. 3. 1943

Commonwealth Powers
Act 1943

Expired; see s. 5

Western Australia

. No. 4. 1943

Commonwealth Powers
Act, 1943

Repealed by No. 58.
1965

No. 57. 1945

Commonwealth Powers
Act. 1945

Repealed by No. 58,
1965

No. 30, 1947

Commonwealth Powers
Act, 1943, Amendment
Act. 1947

Repealed by No. 58.
1965

No. 31. 1947

Common wealth Po went
Act. 1945. Amendment
Act, 1947

Repealed by No. 58,
1965

The Constitution

NOTES — continued

41

State

Number

Short title

How affected

No. 73. 1947

No. 81, 1947

Common wealth Po wers
Act, 1945, Amendment
Act. {No. 2). 1947
Commonwealth Powers
Act. 1945-1947. Amend¬
ment (Continuance) Act,
1947

Repealed by No. 58.
1965

Repealed by No. 58.
1965

Tasmania . .

. . il Geo. V.

No. 42

No. 46. 1952

No. 62, 1966

Commonwealth Powers
(A ir Navigation) A ct, 1920
Commonwealth Powers
(Air Transport) Act 1952
Commonwealth Powers
(Trade Practices) Act
1966

Repealed by 1 Geo. VI.
No. 14

(Still in force)

Expired: see s. 2

I 3 . S. 74—See Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968, Privy Council (Appeals
from the High Court) Act 1975 and Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd (No
2); Ex parte Attorney-General (QLD) (1985) 58 ALR 108.

14. S. 1 26—See clause IV of the Letters Patent relating to the Office of Governor-
General, published in Gazette 1984, S334, pp. 3 and 4 and infra p. 44.

15. Section 127 before its repeal by the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967,
provided as follows:

127. In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of
a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted."

42

Proclamation Declaring Establishment of Commonwealth

PROCLAMATION UNITING THE PEOPLE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
VICTORIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA, QUEENSLAND, TASMANIA, AND
WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN A FEDERAL COMMONWEALTH.

(Imperial Statutory Rules and Orders, Revised 1948, Vol. II.,
Australia, p. 1027.)

1900 No. 722.

At i t ui Court at Balmoral,

The 17th day of September, 1900.

Prlsknt:

The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council.

The following Draft Proclamation was this day read at the Board and
approved:—

A. W. FITZROY.

By thl QuutN.

PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS by an Act of Parliament passed in the sixty-third and sixty-fourth
years of Our Reign intituled, "An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of
Australia," it is enacted that it shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice
of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day
appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people
of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania,
and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have
agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth
under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia:

And whereas We are satisfied that the people of Western Australia have
agreed thereto accordingly:

We, therefore, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council, have thought
fit to issue this Our Royal Proclamation, and We do hereby declare that on
and after the first day ol January, One thousand nine hundred and one, the
people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania,
and Western Australia shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the
name of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Given at Our Court at Balmoral, this seventeenth day of September,
in the year of Our Lord One thousand nine hundred and in the sixty-
fourth year of Our Reign.

GOO SA Vl£ II II: QULKN!

ANNEXURE 2

1. The Act of Settlement ,1701

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

Act of Settlement, 1701

Page 1 of 3

Act of Settlement, 1701

The Jacobite Heritage

Whereas in the first year of the reign of Your Majesty, and of our late most gracious sovereign lady
Queen Mary (of blessed memory), an Act of Parliament was made, entitled, "An Act for declaring the
rights and liberties of the subject, and for settling the succession of the crown," wherein it was
(amongst other things) enacted, established, and declared that the crown and regal government of the
Kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, should be and
continue to Your Majesty and the said late Queen, during the joint lives of Your Majesty and the said
Queen, and to the survivor: and that after the decease of Your Majesty and of the said Queen, the said
Crown and regal government should be and remain to the heirs of the body of the said late Queen;
and for default of such issue, to Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of
her body; and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of Your Majesty. And it was thereby
further enacted, that all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be
reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish
religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit,
possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto
belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise any regal power, authority, or
jurisdiction within the same: and in all and every such case and cases the people of these realms shall
be and are thereby absolved of their allegiance: and that the said Crown and government shall from
time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons, being Protestants, as should have
inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person or persons, so reconciled, holding
communion, professing or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead:

After the making of which statute, and the settlement therein contained, your majesty’s good subjects,
who were restored to the full and free possession and enjoyment of their religion, rights, and liberties,
by the providence of God giving success to your majesty’s just undertakings and unwearied
endeavours for that purpose, had no greater temporal felicity to hope or wish for, that to see a royal
progeny descending from Your Majesty, to whom (under God) they owe their tranquillity, and whose
ancestors have for many years been principal assertors of the reformed religion and the liberties of
Europe, and from our said most gracious sovereign lady, whose memory will always be precious to
the subjects of these realms: and it having since pleased Almighty God to take away our said
sovereign Lady, and also the most hopeful Prince William, Duke of Gloucester (the only surviving
issue of Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark) to the unspeakable grief and sorrow of
Your Majesty and your said good subjects, who under such losses being sensibly put in mind, that it
standeth wholly in the pleasure of Almighty God to prolong the lives of Your Majesty and of Her
Royal Highness, and to grant to Your Majesty, or to Her Royal Highness, such issue as may be
inheritable to the Crown and regal government aforesaid, by the respective limitations in the said
recited act contained, do constantly implore the divine mercy for those blessings: and Your Majesty’s
said subjects having daily experience of your royal care and concern for the present and future
welfare of these Kingdoms, and particularly recommending from your throne a further provision to be
made for the succession of the Crown in the Protestant line, for the happiness of the nation, and the
security of our religion; and it being absolutely necessary for the safety, peace, and quiet of this

Act of Settlement, 1701

Page 2 of 3

realm, to obviate all doubts and contentions in the same, by reason of any pretended title to the
Crown, and to maintain a certainty in the succession thereof, to which your subjects may safely have
recourse for their protection, in case the limitations in the said recited act should determine: therefore
tor a further provision of the succession of the Crown in the Protestant line, we Your Majesty’s most
dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled, do beseech Your Majesty that it may be enacted and declared, and be it
enacted and declared by the King’s most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, That the most excellent Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of
Hanover, daughter of the most excellent Princess Elizabeth, late Queen of Bohemia, daughter of our
late sovereign lord King James the First, of happy memory, be and is hereby declared to be the next
in succession, in the Protestant line, to the imperial Crown and dignity of the said Realms of England,
France, and Ireland, with the dominions and territories thereunto belonging, after His Majesty, and
the Princess Anne of Denmark, and in default of issue of the said Princess Anne, and of His Majesty
respectively: and that from and after the deceases of His said Majesty, our now sovereign lord, and of
Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and for default of issue of the said Princess
Anne, and of His Majesty respectively, the Crown and regal government of the said Kingdoms of
England, France, and Ireland, and of the dominions thereunto belonging, with the royal state and
dignity of the said Realms, and all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions
and authorities, to the same belonging and appertaining, shall be, remain, and continue to the said
most excellent Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants: and thereunto the said
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, shall and will in the name of all the people of this
Realm, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities: and do faithfully
promise, that after the deceases of His Majesty, and Her Royal Highness, and the failure of the heirs
of their respective bodies, to stand to, maintain, and defend the said Princess Sophia, and the heirs of
her body, being Protestants, according to the limitation and succession of the Crown in this act
specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers, with their lives and estates, against all persons
whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary.

II. Provided always, and be it hereby enacted, That all and every person and persons, who shall or
may take or inherit the said Crown, by virtue of the limitation of this present act, and is, are or shall
be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the
popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities, as in such case or cases
are by the said recited act provided, enacted, and established; and that every King and Queen of this
Realm, who shall come to and succeed in the imperial Crown of this Kingdom, by virtue of this act,
shall have the coronation oath administered to him, her or them, at their respective coronations,
according to the act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of His Majesty, and the said late
Queen Mary, intituled. An act for establishing the coronation oath , and shall make, subscribe, and
repeat the declaration in the act first above recited mentioned or referred to, in the manner and form
thereby prescribed.

III. And whereas it is requisite and necessary that some further provision be made for securing our
religion, laws and liberties, from and after the death of His Majesty and the Princess Anne of
Denmark, and in default of issue of the body of the said Princess, and of His Majesty respectively; be
it enacted by the King’s most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same,

That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with
the Church of England, as by law established;

Act of Settlement, 1701

Page 3 of 3

That in case the Crown and imperial dignity of this Realm shall hereafter come to any person, not
being a native of this Kingdom of England, this nation be not obliged to engage in any war for the
defence of any dominions or territories which do not belong to the Crown of England, without the
consent of Parliament;

That no person who shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall go out of the
dominions of England, Scotland, or Ireland, without the consent of Parliament;

That from and after the time that the further limitation by this act shall take effect, all matters and
things relating to the well governing of this Kingdom, which are properly cognizable in the Privy
Council by the laws and customs of this Realm, shall be translated there, and all resolutions taken
thereupon shall be signed by such of the Privy Council as shall advise and consent to the same;

That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, no person bom out of the Kingdoms of
England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or
made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy
Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either
civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to
himself or to any other or others in trust for him;

That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the
Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons;

That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, judges commissions be made quamdiu se
bene gesserint , and their salaries ascertained and established; but upon the address of both Houses of
Parliament it may be lawful to remove them;

That no pardon under the Great Seal of England be pleadable to an impeachment by the Commons in
Parliament.

IV. And whereas the laws of England are the birth-right of the people thereof, and all the Kings and
Queens, who shall ascend the throne of this Realm, ought to administer the government of the same
according to the said laws, and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively
according to the same: the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do therefore further
humbly pray, That all the laws and statutes of this Realm for securing the established religion, and the
rights and liberties of the people thereof, and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force,
may be ratified and confirmed, and the same are by His Majesty, by and with the advice of the said
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, and by authority of the same, ratified and confirmed
accordingly.

ANNEXURE 3

1. Letter from Australian Parliament House confirming obligatory
nature of the Oath and Affirmation to be sworn and signed by all
Parliamentary members.

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PARLIAMENT HOUSE
CANBERRA ACT 2600
TEL: (02) 6277 7111

ri o jus r '

Mr Peter Batten
PO Box 23A
SOMERS
Vic 3927

Dear. Mr Batten

Your letter dated 31 May 1999 to the Australian Electoral Commission on the subject
of Members’ oaths or affirmations of allegiance was referred to the Department of the
House of Representatives for answer in respect of Members of the House.

An oath or affirmation of allegiance by Members and Senators is a requirement of the
Australian Constitution. No provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 are
involved. Section 42 of the Constitution states:

42. Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his
seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorised by him, an
oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution.

The wording of the oath or affirmation is set out in the schedule to the Constitution, as
follows:

OATH

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria,
Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

AFFIRMATION

I, A.B. , do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

(NOTE - The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.)

There is no provision for any deviation from this constitutional requirement. No
Member may take part in proceedings of the House until sworn in.

The standing orders of the House state in relation to a new Parliament that Members
shall ‘be sworn, or make affirmation, as prescribed by the Constitution’. Although no
more detailed procedures are specified, either in the standing orders or elsewhere, the
traditional practice is as follows.

The oath or affirmation of allegiance taken by newly elected Members at the
beginning of a Parliament is administered by a person authorised to do so by the
Governor-General. This is traditionally a Justice of the High Court. The judge is
escorted into the Chamber and to the Speaker’s Chair by the Seijeant-at-Arms. The
Clerk reads to the House the commission from the Governor-General authorising the
judge to administer the oath or affirmation and then tables the returns to the writs for
the general election, showing the Member elected for each electoral Division.
Members are called by the Clerk in turn and approach the Table in groups of
approximately ten to twelve, make their oath or affirmation, sign (subscribe) the oath
or affirmation form and then return to their seats. The Ministry is usually sworn in
first, followed by the opposition executive and then other Members.

Members not sworn in initially may be sworn in later in the day’s proceedings or on a
.subsequent sitting day by the Speaker. The Speaker receives, after his or her
appointment, a commission from the Governor-General to administer the oath or
affirmation. Those Members elected at by-elections during the course of a Parliament
are also sworn in by the Speaker.

Yours sincerely

Robyn Webber
Director

Chamber Research Office

ANNEXURE 4

1. Extract from High Court of Australia Judgement in Sue v Hill
HCA 30 of 23rd j une 1999

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30 (23 June 1999)

Page 1 of 100

High Court of Australia

[Index] [Search] [Noteug] [Download RTF] [Help]

Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30 (23 June 1999)

Last Updated: 23 June 1999

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

• GLEESON CJ,

GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ ‘
Matter No S179/1998

HENRY (NAI LEUNG) SUE PETITIONER
AND

HEATHER HILL & AN OR RESPONDENTS
Matter No B49/1998

TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES PETITIONER
AND

HEATHER HILL & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30
23 June 1999
S179/1998 and B49/1998

ORDER

l. Answer the questions reserved in each stated case as follows:

(a) Does s 354 of the Act validly confer upon the Court of Disputed Returns jurisdiction to determine
the issues raised in the Petition?

Answer: Yes

http://w^vw.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/l999/3G.html

6/30/99

Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30 (23 June 1999)

Page 15 of 100

citizen or entitled to the rights and privileges of a subject or citizen. That is, the inquiry is not
about whether Australia’s relationships with that power are friendly or not, close or distant, or
meet any other qualitative description. Rather, the words invite attention to questions of
international and domestic sovereigntv[50j.

49. ^Further, because the question is whether, at the material time, the United Kingdom answered

_^/the description of "a foreign power" in s44(i), it is not useful to ask whether that question

could have been easily answered at some earlier time, any more than it is useful to ask whether
it is easily answered now. No doubt individuals will be directly affected by the answer that is
given and, to that extent, their rights, duties and privileges may be affected. But any difficulty
in deciding whether the United Kingdom did answer the description at the material time, or in
deciding when it first answered that description, does not relieve this Court of the task of
answering the question that now is presented.

Constitutional interpretation

50. In Bonser v La Macchia , Windeyer J referred to Australia having become "by international
recognition ... competent to exercise rights that by the law of nations are appurtenant to, or
attributes of, sovereignty' 1 ^!] . His Honour regarded this state of affairs as an instance where
”[t]he law has followed the facts"[52]. It will be apparent that these facts, forming part of the
"march of history"[531, received judicial notice[54] . They include matters and circumstances
external to Australia but in the light of which the Constitution continues to have its effect and,
to repeat Windeyer J's words[55], ”[t]he words of the Constitution must be read with that in
mind".

51. There is nothing radical in doing as Windeyer J said; it is intrinsic to the Constitution. What
has come about is an example of what Story J foresaw (and Griffith CJ repeated[56]) with
respect to the United States Constitution[57]:

"The instrument was not intended to provide merely for the exigencies of a few
years, but was to endure through a long lapse of ages, the events of which were
locked up in the inscrutable purposes of Providence."

52. The changes to which Windeyer J referred did not require amendment to the text of the
Constitution. Rather, they involved[58]:

"in part, the abolition of limitations on constitutional power that were imposed
from outside the Constitution, such as the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (Imp)
and restricting what otherwise would have been the proper interpretation of the
Constitution, by virtue of Australia's status as part of the Empire. When the
Empire ended and national status emerged, the external restrictions ceased, and
constitutional powers could be given their full scope."

Changes in the United Kingdom

53. So also with respect to changes in the constitutional arrangements in the United Kingdom
itself. The condition of those arrangements at any one time may be difficult to perceive by
reason of the lack of any single instrument answering the description of a written constitution.
Nevertheless, it is readily apparent from judicial decisions in the United Kingdom that the

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high ct/l999/30.html

6/30/99

Sue v Hill [ L999] HCA 30 (23 June 1999)

Page 26 of 100

%^The point of immediate significance is that the circumstance that the same monarch exercises
regal functions under the constitutional arrangements in the United Kingdom and Australia
does not deny the proposition that the United Kingdom is a foreign power within the meaning
of s 44(i) of the Constitution. Australia and the United Kingdom have their own laws as to
nationality[1321 so that their citizens owe different allegiances. The United Kingdom has a
distinct legal personality and its exercises of sovereignty, for example in entering military
alliances, participating in armed conflicts and acceding to treaties such as the Treaty of Rome
[1.33), themselves have no legal consequences for this country. Nor, as we have sought to
demonstrate in Section III, does the United Kingdom exercise any function with respect to the
governmental structures of the Commonwealth or the States.

97. As indicated earlier in these reasons, we would give an affirmative answer to the question in
each stated case which asks whether Mrs Hill, at the date of her nomination, was a subject or
citizen of a foreign power within the meaning of s 44(i) of the Constitution.

98. GAUDRON J. In each of these matters a case has been stated for the consideration of the Full
Court pursuant to s 18 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) [134) . Each matter arises out of the 1998
election for the return of six Senators for the State of Queensland to serve in the Parliament of
the Commonwealth. The writ for the election was issued on 31 August 1998. Pursuant to the
writ, nominations were made on or before 10 September and the election was held on

3 October 1998. Following the counting of votes, the Governor of Queensland certified, on
26 October 1998, that Mrs Heather Hill, the first respondent in each matter, was duly elected as
the third Senator. Messrs Ludwig, Mason and Woodley were certified as duly elected as the
fourth, fifth and sixth Senators respectively.

99. The cases have been stated in separate proceedings commenced by the petitioners, Mr Sue and
Mr Sharpies. They invoke the jurisdiction purportedly conferred on this Court bv s 354 of the
Co mmonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) ("the Act"). I say "purportedly conferred" because
question (a) in each of the cases stated asks:

"Does s 354 of the Act validly confer upon the Court of Disputed Returns
jurisdiction to determine the issues raised in the Petition?"

Necessarily, that question must be answered first. Before turning to that question, however, it is
convenient to refer to the nature of the challenge made by the petitioners and the facts by
reference to which each challenge is made.

Nature of the challenge

100. Each petitioner challenges Mrs Hill's election on the basis that, at the time of her nomination,
she did not satisfy the requirements of s_44(i) of the Constitution. Section 44 relevantly
provides:

" Any person who:

(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a
foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a
subject or a citizen of a foreign power; ...

http://www.ausilii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/T999/30.html

6/30/99

ANNEXURE 5

Documents re International Court of Justice

1. Letter of introduction.

2. Application and petition.

3. Orders sought.

4. Affidavit.

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

Institute of Tax,a lion K^t-aidi

8 lh . June 1999
The President,

The International Court of Justice
The Hague,

Netherlands.

Dear Sir,

We hereby place in your hands an unusual but highly important application based
on the provisions of two major treaties and the basic principles of national sovereignty,
which underlie international law.

The application is not made in the name of a government of the Nation State of Australia,
since we are convinced that any governmental power of this nation state remains dormant
and unexercisable in the absence of a plebiscite of the Australian people under which we
could authorise a national government to be formed.

We have been informed by the United Nations that the Australian people, rather than the
government, are the state. The Application is therefore made on their behalf. It is not
made in the interests of any one section and our desire is the establishment of a legal
political and judicial system in Australia to provide peace, order, and good government.

In particular we desire a judicial system in which truth and justice are the most important
elements rather than those dominating the existing illegal system run for the benefit of
those who preside over it and those who work within it.

To assist the court we have also requested the assistance of a number of other powers in
bringing this matter to a hearing. All of the powers approached are signatories to either or
both of the principal treaties cited and therefore are bound to see the treaty provisions
upheld.

Those of us who are desirous of a peaceful outcome believe that the issues of international
law involved are so fundamental that an early decision by the Honourable Court would be
relatively straightforward. Armed with such a decision we know the Australian people
could then rectify the situation with minimal levels of disturbance.

We therefore place the matter in your hands in the knowledge that all the domestic
remedies in Australia have been exhausted and that the Australian courts are sworn to
uphold the domination of a foreign government and system.

Tel (07) 3257 1920

Fax (07) 3852 2486

Unit 117. MacTaggarts Place
53 Vernon Terrace
Teneriffe Wharves QLD 4005
Email itnn>hypermax.net.an

Tel

Fax

(03) 8796 3311
(03) 8796 3322

7 Apsley Place PO Box 9112
Sea ford Mail Centre
Seaford VIC 3198

Email taxres(s>hotmail.com

A number of senior members of the legal profession have volunteered to present the case
to the Honourable Court on behalf of the Australian people and in addition there have been
sufficient contributions to ensure the full carriage of the matters.

The people of Australia place their trust in the deliberations of the Court in the belief that
the International Court of Justice alone can provide the justice they seek.

Signed on behalf of the citizens of Australia

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
AT THE HAGUE

No.

of 1999

In the matter of an Application under Article 36 of the Statute

Between

THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant

And

THE PARLIAMENT AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

Respondent

APPLICATION AND PETITION

We, the Sovereign People of Australia humbly petition the Honourable Court to cause
to appear before it representatives of the Parliament and Government of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in a matter involving the sustained
and deliberate breaches of Articles X, XVIII, and XX of the Covenant of the League
of Nations and Articles 2, 4, 6,102 and 103 of the Charter of the United Nations in
that they have promoted maintained and succoured an illegal colonial regime within
the sovereign territory of Australia, and that they have deliberately and sustainedly
created and maintained laws of the Imperial Parliament of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland whose sole purpose was the continued subjugation
of peoples not lawfully under the sovereign authority of the said parliament.

Further that they, and their de facto colonial government of the Commonwealth of
Australia, and their colonial governments of the component states therein, acting
without ever having acquired the permission of the Australian people to exercise their
sovereign power, have oppressed the sovereign people of Australia in divers ways as
shown in the particulars hereunder.

Under the powers conferred on this Honourable Court under Article 36 of its Statute
relating to its sole and compulsory jurisdiction over matters involving treaties and
breaches thereof we request that the court hear our petition, brought forward with the
assistance of the governments of other nation signatories to the above treaties under
whose terms they are duty bound to defend the political independence of the nation of
Australia.

PARTICULARS

1. The Commonwealth of Australia was formed as a colonial federation of six
British Colonies under the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia
1900 (UK), an Act under domestic British law passed by the Imperial
Parliament of the United Kingdom in July 1900 coming into effect on 1
January, 1901.

2. Despite recognition by the other nations of the world as an independent nation
Australia is still governed today under this Act of British domestic law in
contravention of international law and practice. The power of repeal and
therefore of sovereignty over the Act remains solely with the Government and
Parliament of the United Kingdom.

3. By the preamble to this Act the Commonwealth was established under the
sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, a legal entity
which ceased to exist upon attainment of independence by the Irish Free State
on 15 ,h . January 1922 when “Ireland” ceased to exist.

4. The aforesaid Act is determined in such ways as to ensure the permanent
retention of executive power by the United Kingdom by establishing eight (8)
preliminary sections which the colonial government had no rights to adjust or
alter and a ninth section being the Constitution under which the
Commonwealth would be administered.

5. The eight preliminary sections, known in Australian law as the Covering
Clauses, ensure that the “Commonwealth” as an entity established under
Section 6 must be as defined in the Act and Constitution. In Section 8 the
Commonwealth is defined as a “self governing colony”, which is a true and
fair description of the Commonwealth as established.

6. Under the provisions of Section 2 permanently establishing the Crown of the
United Kingdom as the sovereign authority, which is described in Section 61
of the included Constitution as holding all executive power, the
Commonwealth is defined in such a way that sovereign authority cannot pass
to the people of Australia in any manner consistent with the document which
remains current British domestic law.

7. However at the Imperial War Conference of 1917 the Imperial Government
and the assembled representatives of the Dominions of Canada, Australia,
South Africa, New Zealand and Newfoundland decided that the constitutional
arrangements of the British Empire would have to be altered on the basis of
full national equality for the five principal Dominions. (Resolution IX of the
Conference)

8 . At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 the Dominions, including Australia,
were accorded full national recognition and on presentation of full powers
documents in the “Head of State” form became signatories to the Treaty of
Peace signed at Versailles on 28 lh . June, 1919

9. Recognised by the other powers present as a legitimate sovereign nation
Australia was granted a C class mandate over former German territories in the
Pacific Ocean adjacent to Australia.

10. Acting within the new nation status now recognised by the other participant
nations Australia then signed further Peace Treaties with the former
belligerents, Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria, and Poland.

11. In its new national capacity Australia became one of the founding members of
the International Labour organisation.

12. Upon the commencement of the operations of the League of Nations on 10 th .
January 1920 Australia became a member of the Assembly of the League,
took part in its deliberations and voted upon issues, at times taking the
opposite side from its former colonial power.

13. At the Imperial Conference of 1921 the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom, Mr. Lloyd George, opened the conference with a speech in which
he specifically drew attention to the new status of the dominions as having
equal national status with the United Kingdom. The Imperial Conference then
formally sealed this decision. These events were formally reported to the
Australian Parliament on 30 th . September 1921 (see attachment from the
official record.)

14. Thus the United Kingdom in document and deed officially relinquished
sovereign authority in and over Australia.

15. The then Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. William Morris Hughes, reported
the events of the Paris Peace conference to the Parliament of the
Commonwealth on 10 th . September 1919 (see attachment from the official
record) and following protracted debate both Houses of the Commonwealth
Parliament unanimously ratified the Treaty of Peace on the 19 th . September
and l s[ October 1919 respectively thereby accepting the new nation status for
Australia.

16. In December 1921 the Prime Minister Mr. Hughes introduced a bill into the
Commonwealth Parliament to commence the rearrangement of the
constitutional basis as required under Resolution DC of the Imperial War
Conference 1917. However political pressure from British commercial
interests on members of Parliament saw the unanimous vote of 1919 disappear
and the bill was withdrawn due to lack of support. As a result the required
constitutional alterations to recognise Australia’s change of status have never
been carried out.

17. Further all the Courts of the Commonwealth have refused to recognise the
historical events of 1917,1919 and 1921 and maintain the fiction that
Australia “gradually became independent somewhere between World War
One and World War Two.” By this fiction the courts and judges are able to
avoid the necessary break in legal continuity arising from the change in

sovereignty and have continued to enforce colonial laws at all levels and have
resisted all attempts to have them fully consider the historical facts.

18. Further the courts of Australia effectively operate as courts administering
United Kingdom law although current domestic law of the United Kingdom
requires that such courts can only operate within sovereign territory of the
United Kingdom and can only be presided over by persons qualified under
current United Kingdom law. The persons presiding over such courts in
Australia are not qualified under United Kingdom law.

19. The law schools of the various Australian universities do not teach or even
reveal the above facts to their students. All Australian lawyers are taught to
look to the United Kingdom for their authority as well as common law and
certain statute law.

20. They are aided and abetted in this by the chief legal officers of the
Commonwealth and the States who also refuse to recognise the aforesaid facts
and knowingly disseminate false information to the public and the courts. As
a result the people of Australia are denied redress of their complaint5s under
properly constituted courts of law as prescribed in international law.

21. Although the record of the parliament includes its acceptance of the historical
changes, in practise the executive government co-operates with the courts to
conceal the facts and their import from all Australian citizens.

22. In 1931 the Imperial Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster designed to
aid and abet the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the
governments of other former Dominions in the denial of their peoples
sovereignty and to ensure the continued imposition of United Kingdom
domestic law upon the peoples of the former Dominions. Although required
by Article XVIII of the Covenant of the League of Nations to register this
international arrangement with the secretariat of the League this was not done,
thereby showing that the United Kingdom in practise continued to treat
Australia and the other former Dominions as de facto colonies in
contravention of international law.

23. Under the Act of Settlement of 1701, being an Act of the English Parliament
adopted into United Kingdom law by the Act of Union of 1706, the sovereign
of England and thus of the United Kingdom is required to obey this law in
order to hold the throne. Because of the operation of this law the current
Sovereign of the United Kingdom remains a British subject and subject to the
authority of the United Kingdom Parliament. Any Royal Assent to bills
passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia is thus de facto
the assent of the sovereign authority of the Imperial Parliament of the United
Kingdom and unlawful in international law unless the Commonwealth remains
a colony.

24. If Australia remains a self-governing colony of the United Kingdom the
exclusion of Australian citizens and products from the benefits of the Treaty or

Rome and subsequent pan European agreements and treaties entered into by
the United Kingdom is unlawful.

25. By these means the Australian people are denied their sovereign rights, their
freedoms, the capacity to conduct their own lawful affairs, are differentially
taxed in such a manner to place a burden upon ordinary citizens whilst special
laws allow major foreign companies, including those of the former colonial
power, to operate with minimal taxation. The taxation applied to the ordinary
citizens operates under arbitrary rules and with draconian powers which
breach both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966
Convention on Civil and Political Rights by frequently arbitrarily seizing their
property and depriving some citizens of their right to subsistence conferred
under Article 1.2 of the Convention.

26. In 1945, when presenting its credentials for the San Francisco Conference
which established the United Nations the Commonwealth Government
deliberately falsely informed the Conference that the Constitution was
Australian law under which the Government was established and under which
the Full Powers documents were issued, whereas the Constitution remains
current domestic legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament.

In the alternative, if the acceptance of the sovereign nation of Australia as a
member state of the United Nations was valid, then the continued application
of United Kingdom colonial law within Australia is a breach of Sections 4 and
6 of the Charter as well as various Resolutions of the General Assembly of the
United Nations. The so-called Australia Acts 1986 of the Commonwealth and
the United Kingdom parliaments are in fact international treaties or
arrangements and are required to be registered in accordance with Sections
102 and 103 of the said Charter but have not been so registered.

27. The sovereign authority of the Australian people remains unchallenged, but it
is clear that the Government in all its aspects, judicial, executive and
parliamentary remains a de facto colonial government of the United Kingdom
and as such possesses no sovereign or legal authority in and over the
independent nation of Australia.

28. Various Australian citizens have attempted to seek judicial review of the
situation but have been denied by the Supreme Courts of the states and the
High Court of Australia ( see attached judgements).

29. Redress has been sought within the High Court, being the official highest
court in the nation but this has been denied by both the justices and officials of
the courts. Having thus exhausted all domestic remedies we therefore seek to
place the matters before this Honourable Court as a Court of last resort.

30. Mindful of the question of locus standii, but in full belief that the Sovereign
People of Australia have a right to be heard, we have therefore sought
assistance from several governments of nation signatories to the
aforementioned treaties, to bring these issues under the treaties before the
Court if standing is denied to the People of Australia.

ORDERS SOUGHT

We, the people of Australia, therefore seek the following orders from this Honourable

Court.

A. That the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom be ordered to
cease all acts and destroy all documents and authorities which purport in any
way to exercise sovereign authority over Australia.

B. That the Parliament of the United Kingdom be required to repeal forthwith all
laws supporting or succouring or seeking to be used by colonial governments
in Australia.

C. That the Government of the United Kingdom be ordered to withdraw and
destroy all Letters Patent issued by the Queen of the United Kingdom, either
by and with the assistance of the Government or without such assistance, and
to advise all parties in Australia publicly that any subsidiary Letters Patent or
Commissions appointing judges or other public officials possess no legal
authority and status

D. That Australia’s seat at the United Nations be declared vacant and that the
government of the Commonwealth be declared to have no legal standing.

E. That until a plebiscite is conducted of the Australian people to establish a new
legal government that the only law in effect in Australia is international law
until the people of Australia specifically allow parts of the law in prior usage
to continue for a limited time in the interests of peace and good order.

F. To declare that the Queen of the United Kingdom, under the terms of the Act
of Settlement of 1701 being a British subject and thereby subject to the
sovereign authority of the British people as expressed through their Parliament
has no continuing authority in and over Australia unless and until the
Australian people exercising their free informed choice determine otherwise.

G. That at its discretion this Honourable Court place for investigation before the
International War Crimes Commission, or when its Statute may be approved
before the International Criminal Court, the names and activities of any person
who is held to be with full knowledge of the legal circumstances seen to be
continuing to act contrary to international law and binding Conventions.

H. Any such other order as the Honourable Court may determine.

6. That although the events of 1919 to 1921 are publicly acknowledged history in
the rest of the world the facts are omitted from every major history textbook
published in Australia, they are not taught in history courses in Australian
schools or universities.

7. That the date of Australia’s independence has been knowingly concealed by
the Executive Governments of the Commonwealth and the States and by the
United Kingdom Government during recent times as shown by the attached
letters.

8.. That the legal profession in Australia have willingly and knowingly acted to
prevent the Australian people from attaining and exercising their civil and
political rights as acknowledged under instruments of international law.

9. That if this application and petition are not heard before this Honourable Court
then, because some 2 million Australians are now aware of the facts and have
expressed great anger at public meetings, the strong likelihood exists that
armed conflict will break out in Australia between the current illegal regime
and the people of Australia. Further that such a conflict could have major
international repercussions given that the same historical facts and situations
apply to the people of Canada, and the people of New Zealand.

Witness.

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
AT THE HAGUE

No.

of 1999

In the matter of an Application under Article 36 of the Statute

Between

And

THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant

THE PARLIAMENT AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Ian Sidney Henke, of 7 Apsley Place Seaford in the State of Victoria make oath

and say as follows:

1. That I have supervised the preparation of the Application and Petition to the
International Court of Justice in the above matter.

2. That the Application is made on behalf of numerous Australian citizens, who
having vainly sought redress and justice from the Australian courts now seek
redress before this Honourable Court.

3. That in the attempt to have the issues brought before the High Couirt of
Australia Justice Hayne elected to convert five individual cases into a class
action the only common class being that all five Applicants were citizens of
Australia and that Hayne J. did dispose of their Applications in a common,
class, judgement as attached..

4. That to the best of my knowledge and belief the documents attached hereto are
true and correct copies of the official records, publications and court
transcripts obtained by us during the preparation of this petition and
application.

5. That a deliberate program of misinformation is being conducted by the
Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and its agencies, in evidence
of which we include public statements by the Commissioner of Taxation and
the Assistant Commissioner of Taxation, newspaper articles, and an internal
instruction to lower ranked staff.

J

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

]

■]

Prepared by: The Institute of Taxation Research
Of: 7 Apsley Place

Seaford, Victoria
Phone 64.3.8796 3311
Fax: 64.3.8796 3322

On behalf of: The Sovereign People of Australia.

Signed by on Behalf of the Sovereign People of Australia

Foreign Sc
Commonwealth
Office

22 July 1999

North East Asia and Pacific Department
London SW1A 2AP

Telephone: 0171-270 1

I Henke

Institute of Taxation Research
Unit 117

MacTaggarts Place
53 Vernon Terrace
Teneriffe Wharves
Brisbane
Queensland 4005
AUSTRALIA

t

APPLICATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Please refer to your letter to the Prime Minister dated 14
June with which you enclosed copies of the above application
and petition in two volumes. I have been asked to acknowledge
receipt.

Since under Article 34(1) of the Statute of the International
Court of Justice "only states may be parties in cases before
the Court", and the Institute of Taxation Research is clearly
not a state, the British Government does not intend to respond
to this application.

u

Jonathan Drew

North East Asia and Pacific Department

ANNEXURE 6

1. Letter from United Nations re Australia’s status as a sovereign State.

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

NATIONS UN 1ES

UNITED NATIONS

R047AL ADDHC13-ADRESSK R O! TAl_E UNITED N« IIONt. NT IOOI7

CABLE ADORES*-ADACIIE TILtOEAPHIOUE UNATIONB NIwrOKK

REFERENCE

19 December 1997

Dear Mr. Joosse,

This is in response to your memorandum of 5 December 1997
which asks us the date that the Untied Nations recognizes as "the
legal date on which Australia ceased to be a colony of the United
Kingdom and assumed sovereign nation status." You also allude to
recent enquiries conducted by the Secretary-General and my office
on this issue.

We are unaware of any enquiries being made on this issue in
this Office.

In relation to your question we note that the Charter of the
•United Nations entered into force on 24 October 1945 and that
Australia was an original Member of the United Nations, having
signed the Charter on 26 June 1945. Australia's status as of
that date was obviously that of a sovereign State. The exact
date that it assumed such status is not a matter on which this
Office can pronounce.

Y irs sincerely,

ful C. S:

Acting Director and/D4^uty to the
Under-Secret a^y^-General
Office of the Legal Counsel

Mr. W. Joosse

Managing Director

David Keys Australia PTY.LTD.

6 Apsley Place

Seaford Victoria 3198

Australia

ANNEXURE 7

1. Extract from the Charter of the United Nations

2. Copy of UN Resolution 2131 of 1965

3. Copy of UN Resolution 2625 of 1970

Jj,. AUSTRALIA,., i-

I, BRIAN ALEXANDER SLEE, Executive Officer, Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, Canberra, hereby certify that the attached text is a true copy of the Charter of the
United Nations, with the Statute of the International Court of Justice annexed thereto,
done at San Francisco on the twenty-sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and
forty-five, the original of which is deposited in the archives of the Government of the
United States of America.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia.

SIGNED at Canberra on this sixteenth day of October, one thousand nine hundred and
ninety-seven.

a

JLQsx^

Executive Officer
Treaties Secretariat

CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our life¬
time has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the
human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and
small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising
from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good
neighbors, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that
armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social
advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS
TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in
the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good
and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do
hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

CHAPTER I

PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and se¬
curity, and to that end: to take effective collec¬
tive measures for the prevention and removal of
threats to the peace, and for the suppression of
acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,
and to bring about by peaceful means, and in con¬
formity with the principles of justice and inter¬
national law, adjustment or settlement of inter¬
national disputes or situations which might lead
to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations
based on respect for the principle of equal rights
and self-determination of peoples, and to take
other appropriate measures to strengthen univer¬
sal peace;

3. To achieve international cooperation in
solving international problems of an economic,
social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in
promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights and for fundamental freedoms for all with¬
out distinction as to race, sex, language, or re¬
ligion; and

4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions
of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit
of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in
accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle
of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of
them the rights and benefits resulting from mem¬
bership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations
assumed by them in accordance with the present
Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international

disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that
international peace and security, and justice, are
not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their interna¬
tional relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political inde¬
pendence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United
Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations
every assistance in any action it takes in accord¬
ance with the present Charter, and shall refrain
from giving assistance to any state against which
the United Nations is taking preventive or enforce¬
ment action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states
which are not Members of the United Nations act
in accordance with these Principles so far as may
be necessary for the maintenance of international
peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter
shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in
matters which are essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Mem¬
bers to submit such matters to settlement under
the present Charter; but this principle shall not
prejudice the application of enforcement meas¬
ures under Chapter VII.

CHAPTER II-

MEMBERSHIP
Article 3

The original Members of the United Nations
shall be the states which, having participated in
the United Nations Conference on International
Organization at San Francisco, or having previ¬
ously signed the Declaration by United Nations
of January 1,1942, sign the present Charter and
ratify it in accordance with Article 110.

3

V

down by the Security Council, but in no case shall
such conditions place the parties in a position of
inequality before the Court.

3. When a state which is not a Member of the
United Nations is a party to a case, the Court shall
fix the amount which that party is to contribute
towards the expenses of the Court. This provision
shall not apply if such state is bearing a share of
the expenses of the Court.

Article 36

1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all
cases which the parties refer to it and all matters
•pecially provided for in the Charter of the United
Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.

2. The states parties to the present Statute may
at any time declare that they recognize as compul¬
sory ipso facto and without special agreement, in
relation to any other state accepting the same obli¬
gation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal
disputes concerning:

a. the interpretation of a treaty;

b. any question of international law;

c. the existence of any fact which, if estab¬
lished, would constitute a breach of an inter¬
national obligation;

d. the nature or extent of the reparation to
be made for the breach of an international ob¬
ligation.

3. The declarations referred to above may be
made unconditionally or on condition of reci¬
procity on the part of several or certain states, or
for a certain time.

4. Such declarations shall be deposited with
the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who
shall transmit copies thereof to the parties to the
Statute and to the Registrar of the Court.

5. Declarations made under Article 36 of the
Statute of the Permanent Court of International
Justice and which are still in force shall be deemed,
as between the parties to the present Statute, to be
acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the

International Court of Justice for the period which
they still have to run and in accordance with their
terms.

6. In the event of a dispute as to whether the

Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled

bv the decision of the Court.

*

Article 37

Whenever a treaty or convention in force pro¬
vides for reference of a matter to a tribunal to have
been instituted by the League of Nations, or to the
Permanent Court of International Justice, the
matter shall, as between the parties to the present
Statute, be referred to the International Court of
Justice.

Article 38

1. The Court, whose function is to decide in
accordance with international law such disputes
as are submitted to it, shall apply:

a. international conventions, whether gen¬
eral or particular, establishing rules expressly
recognized by the contesting states;

b. international custom, as evidence of a
general practice accepted as law;

c. the general principles of law recognized
by civilized nations;

d. subject to the provisions of Article 59,
judicial decisions and the teachings of the most
highly qualified publicists of the various na¬
tions, as subsidiary means for the determination
of rules of law.

2. This provision shall not prejudice the power
of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if
the parties agree thereto.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURE

Article 39

1. The official languages of the Court shall be
French and English. If the parties agree that the

26

Article 96

1. The General Assembly or the Security
Council may request the International Court of
Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal
question.

2. Other organs of the United Nations and
specialized agencies, which may at any time be
so authorized by the General Assembly, may also
request advisory opinions of the Court on legal
questions arising within the scope of their activ¬
ities.

CHAPTER XV

THE SECRETARIAT

Article 97

The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-
General and such staff as the Organization may
require. The Secretary-General shall be ap¬
pointed by the General Assembly upon the recom¬
mendation of the Security Council. He shall be
the chief administrative officer of the Organization.

Article 98

The Secretary-General shall act in that capacity
in all meetings of the General Assembly, of the
Security Council, of the Economic and Social
Council, and of the Trusteeship Council, and shall
perform such other functions as are entrusted to
him by these organs. The Secretary-General shall
make an annual report to the General Assembly
on the work of the Organization.

Article 99

The Secretary-General may bring to the atten¬
tion of the Security Council any matter which in
his opinion may threaten the maintenance of in¬
ternational peace and security.

Article 100

1. In the performance of their duties the Secre¬

tary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive
instructions from any government or from any
other authority external to the Organization.
They shall refrain from any action which might
reflect on their position as international officials
responsible only to the Organization.

2. Each Member of the United Nations under¬
takes to respect the exclusively international
character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-
General and the staff and not to seek to influence
them in the discharge of their responsibilities.

Article 101

1. The staff shall be appointed by the Secre¬
tary-General under regulations established by the
General Assembly.

2. Appropriate staffs shall be permanently
assigned to the Economic and Social Council, the
Trusteeship Council, and, as required, to other
organs of the United Nations. These staffs shall
form a part of the Secretariat.

3. The paramount consideration in the em¬
ployment of the staff and in the determination of
the conditions of service shall be the necessity of
securing the highest standards of efficiency, com¬
petence, and integrity. Due regard shall be paid
to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide
a geographical basis as possible.

CHAPTER XVI

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Article 102

1. Every treaty and every international agree¬
ment entered into by any Member of the United
Nations after the present Charter comes into force
shall as soon as possible be registered with the
Secretariat and published by it.

2. No party to any such treaty or international
agreement which has not been registered in ac¬
cordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of

18

/this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement
before any organ of the United Nations.

Article 103

In the event of a conflict between the obligations
of the Members of the United Nations under the
present Charter and their obligations under any
other international agreement, their obligations
under the present Charter shall prevail.

Article 104

The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of
each of its Members such legal capacity as may be
'■'“cessary for the exercise of its functions and the
f ulfillment of its purposes.

Article 105

1. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory
of each of its Members such privileges and im¬
munities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its
purposes.

2. Representatives of the Members of the
United Nations and officials of the Organization
shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immuni¬
ties as are necessary for the independent exercise
of their functions in connection with the Organi¬
zation.

3. The General Assembly may make recom¬
mendations with a view to determining the details
of the application of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this
Article or may propose conventions to the Mem¬
bers of the United Nations for this purpose.

the exercise of its responsibilities under Article
42, the parties to the Four-Nation Declaration,
signed at Moscow, October 30,1943, and France,
shall, in accordance with the provisions of para¬
graph 5 of that Declaration, consult with one an¬
other and as occasion requires with other Members
of the United Nations with a view to such joint
action on behalf of the Organization as may be
necessary for the purpose of maintaining inter¬
national peace and security.

Article 107

Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate
or preclude action, in relation to any state which
during the Second World War has been an enemy
of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or
authorized as a result of that war by the Govern¬
ments having responsibility for such action.

CHAPTER XVIH

AMENDMENTS
Article 108

Amendments to the present Charter shall come
into force for all Members of the United Nations
when they have been adopted by a vote of two
thirds of the members of the General Assembly
and ratified in accordance with their respective
constitutional processes by two thirds of the Mem¬
bers of the United Nations, including all the per¬
manent members of the Security Council.

CHAPTER XVII

TRANSITIONAL SECURITY
ARRANGEMENTS

Article 106

Pending the coming into force of such special
agreements referred to in Article 43 as in the
opinion of the Security Council enable it to begin

Article 109

1. A General Conference of the Members of
the United Nations for the purpose of reviewing
the present Charter may be held at a date and
place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the mem¬
bers of the General Assembly and by a vote of any
seven members of the Security Council. Each
Member of the United Nations shall have one vote
in the conference.

19

YEARBOOK

OF THE

UNITED

NATIONS

1965

OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK

94

POLITICAL AND SECURITY QUESTIONS

jub-

leclaration, A/C.l/LUTJ/RevT
A/\[/L.353 and Add. I. United Arab Republic
lited Republic of Tanzania: draft dcclaraco

A/C. VL.353/Rev.I. Iraq, United Arab Republic
UniVd Republic of Tanzania: revised dnlz
claraVon.

A/C. l/\353/Rev.2. Algeria, Burma, Traq. J;Jan,
KenyaX Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, MauritazijNi-

. TTr,:r-^ 3.

lie of T^zaoia, Yugoslavia: revise
tion.

A/C.l/L.353teev.3 and Add.l. Algeria, Bu.—
rundi, Irac\ Jordan, Kecva, Kuwait, Lit
Libya, Mala&i, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria. R-
Syria, TogoA Ugaoda, United Arab R:
United RcpubV: of Tanzania, Yemen, Yjz

: Zambia: revised draft declaration.

A/C.l/L.353/Rev.\and Add.!. Algeria, B
rundi, Cam eroon,yvorus. India. Irao. Jorc
ya, KiiWSffTIHJar

tania, Nigeria, RvvaVda, Saudi .Arabia, Sucfc. Syria,
Togo, Uganda, UniVd .Arab Republic, LX'::d Re¬
public of Tanzania, Veraen, Yugoslavia/Zambia:
revised draft declaration.

A/C.I/L.354. India: arrVndments to 18-/Er-er draft
resolution, A/C.l/L.34£YRev.l.

A/C.l/L.364 and Add. 1. \kfghan is tan,/Mzzria, Ar
gentina, Bolivia, Brazil, B
Civile, Colombia
RepffBTR^l 1 Uongo, Costa
Ecuador, El Salvador, E
Guatemala, Haiti, Hond
Ivory Coast, Jordan, Keny

Bu-
Ken-

awi, a uri-

a, Burur/i, Cameroon,
mcaaric
ca, Cyinii, Dahomey,
pia, iSaboa, Guinea,
Ir®ia, Iran. Iraq,
uwait, Lebanon,

Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauri tV/a. Mexico, Nica¬
ragua, Niger, Nigeria, Panarr.l Piragua-?. Peru,
Rwanda^ i 2 l ^idi»U^"»r^" w, " , yV ,, * , *«^ii5 l ^Togo,
Irimdad and Tobago, Tuni/a,\Uganda^L'aited
.Arab Republic, United Republic dL Tanzzria, Uru¬
guay, Venezuela, Yemen, YuYosIavA Zambia: draft
declaration, approved by First CoVmittre on 20
December 1965, meeting /t 22, by All-caC vote of
100 to 0, with 5 abstentions, as follow
In favour: Afghanistan. Algeria, ArgeAir.a Austria,
Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgay[, Burma, BuAr.cL Byelo¬
russian SSR, Cameri^m, Canada, CcnAd .African
'Republic, Ceylon, CAilc, China, CoIorr.V

S T

nv.v

Congo
Congo,
Daho-
dor, El

'IT .. 'i Ml.^. 1IL.L Li. t .

Costa Rica, Cubag Cyprus, Czcchoslovi
tney, Denmark.^omtnican Republic, E:

Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabcr.Xjhana,
Greece, Guat^nala, Guinea, Haiti, HondazAHun¬
gary, Icela^f, India, Iran, Iraq, Irelazi (Israel,
Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan. *

Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg. ?
gascar, Jn. alawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritaz.

(go, Xtfngolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua

Paraguay,

PhiUfpines, Poland, Romama^S*^, Saudi
Ar/oia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, aplin, Su-
d#, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and
obago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR,

A/6220. Report of First Committee.
resolution 2131(joc), as proposed by First Com¬
mittee, A/6220, adopted by Assembly oa 21 De¬
cember 1965, meeting 1408, by roll-ciil vote of 109
to 0, with I abstention, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Aus¬
tralia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria,
Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR, Cameroon, Can¬
ada, Central African Republic, Ceylsa, Cbad, Chile,
China, Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville! Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus,
Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark. Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Emirpia, Finland,
France, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea,
Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland,
Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,
Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Lux¬
embourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maidive
Islands, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Mo¬
rocco, Nepal, Nether lan ds, New Zealand, Nicaragua,
Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay,
Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia,
Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo,
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda,
Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Arab Republic,
United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper
Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Jugoslavia,
Zambia.

Against: None.

Ab:taining: United Kingdom.

"The General Assembly,

"Deeply concerned at the gravity of *h: international
situation and the increasing threat to universal peace
due to armed intervention and other direct or indirect
forms of interference threatening the sovereign per¬
sonality and the political independence of States,

"Considering that the United Nations, in accordance
with their aim to eliminate war, threats to the peace
and acts of aggression, created an Organization, based
on the sovereign equality of States, whose friendly
relations would be based on respect for the principle
of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and
on the obligation of its Members to r;m:a from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of any State.

"Recognising that, Ln fulfilment of me principle of
self-determination, the General Assembly, in the De¬
claration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples contained in resolution . 1514
(XV) of 14 December I960, stated :a conviction
that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete
freedom, the exercise of their soverripty and the
integrity of their national territory, and mat, by virtue
of that right, they freely determine their political

IMPROVING RELATIONS BETWEEN EUROPEAN' STATES

95

status and freely pursue isir economic, social and
cultural development,

'‘Recalling that in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights the General Assembly proclaimed that
recognition of the inheres: dignity and of the equal
and inalienable rights of til members of the human
family is the foundation or freedom, justice and peace
in the world, without distinction of any kind,

"Reaffirming the principle at noa-intervcntion, pro¬
claimed in the charters of the Organization of Ameri¬
can States, the League of Arab Slates and the Organ¬
ization of .African Unity aid a5nr.ed ac the confer¬
ences held ax Montevideo. 3reic» Aires, Chapultcpec
and Bogoci, as well as in tie decisions of the Asian -
African Conference at Bizciig. the First Conference
of Heads of Scate or Government of Non-Aligned
Councries at Belgrade, in tie Programme for Peace
and International Co-operattta adopted ac the end of
the Second Conference of Heads of State or Govern¬
ment of Not:-Aligned Countries a: Cairo, and in the
declaration on subversion adapted at Accra by the
Heads of State and Government of the .African States,
"Recognising that full observance of the principle of
the non-intervention of States in the internal and
external affairs of other States is essential to the
fulfilment of the purposes aid principles of the United
Nations,

"Considering that artced titervcation is synonymous
with aggression and, as such, is contrary to the basic
principles on which peaceful iiteraadonal co-operation
between States should be built,

"Considering further that direct intervention, sub¬
version and all forms of indirect intervention are
contrary to these principles and, consequently, consti¬
tute a violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
"Mindful that violation if the principle of non¬
intervention poses a threat :n the independence, free¬
dom and normal political, ectnocuc, social and cul¬
tural development of countries, particularly those
which have freed themselves from colonialism, and can
pose a serious threat to the cmcitenance of peace,
"Fully aw ere of the imperative need to create ap¬
propriate conditions which would enable all States, and
in particular the developing countries, to choose with¬
out duress or coercion their own political, economic
and social institutions,

"In the light of the foregoing considerations.

solemnly declares:

“I. No State has tie right to intervene, directly or
indirectly, for any ma whatever, in the Internal or
external affairs of my ocher State. Consequently,
armed intervention mi oil other forms of interference
or attempted threats against the personality of the
State or against in icticical, economic and cultural
elements, are concerned.

“2. No State mir use or encourage the use of
economic, political it any other type of measures to
coerce another Scit; m order to obtain from it the
subordination of h: exercise of its sovereign rights or
to secure from it id-ortages of any kind. Also, no
State shall organdie, exist, foment, finance, incite or
tolerate subversive. ms: or armed activities directed
cowards the violent r-irmrow of the regime of another
Scace, or interfere ii a-ril strife in another State.

"3. The use o: to deprive peoples of their

national identity ccuarms a violation of their inalien¬
able rights and of u: principle of non-intervention.

*'4. The strict tii-immce of these obligations is a jq
essential condition tr ensure that nations live together
in peace with one since the practice of any

form of intervened m only violates the spirit and
letter of the Charter :: the United Nations but also
leads to the creatin t: situations which threaten in¬
ternational peace aid security.

“5. Every State bis in inalienable right to choose
its political, ecor.tni social and cultural system*,
without interference i: my form by another State.

“6. All States titil respect the right of self-deter¬
mination and indit'd;cute of peoples and nations, to
be frntely exercised •--"ait any foreign pressure, and
with absolute respr— tar human rights and funda¬
mental freedoms. Cruesaently, all States shall con¬
tribute to the complete elimination of racial discrimi¬
nation and colonititin in all its forms and mani¬
festations.

"7. For the purptse of the present Declaration,
the term ‘State’ c:t;i both individual States and
groups of States.

”8. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed
as affecting in any miner the relevant provisions of
the Charter of the Cried Nations relating to the
maintenance of intemrrmal peace and security, in
particular those contiied in Chapters VI, VII and
VIII.'’

CHAPTER \TI

REGIONAL ACTION TO IMPROVE RELATIONS BETWEEN
EUROPEAN STATES WITH DIFFERENT SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS

The question of “Actions on the regional level
with a view to improving good neighbourly
relations axnong European States having dif¬
ferent social and political systems" was first

placed on the agenda of the General Assembly
in 1963 at its eighteenth session. This was
done at the request of Romania.

On that occasion, tie Assembly decided, in

YEARBOOK

OF THE

UNITED

NATIONS

Volume 24

1970

OFFICE OF PUBUC INFORMATION
UNITED NATIONS , NEW YORK

FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND
ANNEX

Declaration on Principles of International
Law concerning Friendly Relations and
Co-operation among States in accordance
wtts the Charter op the United Nations

PREAMBLE

The Central Assembly,

Rnf.TTr.ing in the terms of the Charter of the
United Nations that the maintenance of international
peace and security and the development of friendly
relations and co-operation between nations arc aaonz
;he fundamental purposes of the United Nations,

- Risilling that the peoples of the United Nations
are determined to practise tolerance and live together
in peace with one another as good neighbours,

Bearing in mind the importance of maintaining and
strengthening international peace founded upon free¬
dom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental
human rights and of developing friendly relations
among nations irrespective of their political, economic
and social systems or the levels of their development.

Bearing in mind also the paramount importance of
the Charter of the United Nations tn the promotion
of the rule of law among nations,

Considering that the faithful observance of the
principles of international law concerning friendly
relations and co-operation among States and the ful¬
filment in good faith of the obligations assumed by
States, in accordance with the Charter, is of the
greatest importance for the maintenance of interna¬
tional peace and security and for the implementation
of the other purposes of the United Nations,

Soling that the great political, economic and social
changes and scientific progress which have taken
place in the world since the adoption of the Charter
give increased importance to these principles and to
the need for their more effective application in the
conduct of States wherever carried on.

Recalling the established principle that outer space,
including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is no:
subject to national appropriation by claim of sov¬
ereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any
other means, aod mindful of the fact that considera¬
tion is being given in the United Nations to the ques¬
tion of establishing other appropriate provisions sim¬
ilarly inspired.

Convinced that the strict observance by States of the
obligation not to intervene in the inairs of any other
State is an essential condition to ensure thac nations
live together in peace with one mother, since the
practice of any form of intervention not only violates
the spirit and letter of the Charter, but also leads to
the creation of situations which threaten international
peace and security,

Recalling the ducy of States to refrain in their in¬
ternational relations from military, political, economic
or any other form of coercion aimed against the
political independence or territorial integrity of any
State,

COOPERATION AMONG STATES 789

Considering it essential that all States ihail refrain
.a their international relations from the threi: or use
of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any State, or in any other mincer in¬
consistent with chc purposes of the United Nations,
Considering it equally essential that all States
shall settle their international disputes by peaceful
means in accordance with the Charter,

Reaffirming, in accordance with chc Charter, the
basic importance of sovereign equality and stressing
that the purposes of the United Nations can be imple¬
mented only if States enjoy sovereign equality and
comply fully with the requirements of this principle
in their international relations,

Convinced chat the subjection of peoples to alien
subjugation, domination and exploitation tmsdrutes
a major obstacle to the promotion of international
price and security,

Convinced that the principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant
contribution to contemporary international law, and
hat its effective application is of paramount impor¬
tance for the promotion of friendly relations among
States, based on respect for the principle of sovereign
equality.

Convinced in consequence that any attempt aimed
at the partial or total disruption of the national unity
and territorial integrity of a State or country or at its
political independence is incompatible with the pur¬
poses and principles of the Charter,

Considering the provisions of the Charter is a whole
md taking Into account the role of relevant resolu¬
tions adopted by the competent organs of tie United
Nations relating to the content of the principles.
Considering that the progressive development and
edification of the following principles:

(a) The principle thac States shall refrain in their
international relations from die threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political indepen¬
dence of any State, or in any other manner iacoasist-
with the purposes of the United Nations,

\b) The principle that States shall settle their
international disputes by peaceful means in such a
manner that international peace and security and
justice are not endangered,

(e) The duty not to intervene in matters within
the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance
with the Charter,

(d) The duty of States to co-operatc with one an¬
other in accordance with the Charter,

( e ) The principle of equal rights and self-deter¬
mination of peoples,

(/) The principle of sovereign equality of States,

( g ) The principle that States shall fulfil in good
faith the obligations assumed by chem in accordance
•with the Charter,

so as to secure thetr more effective application within
the international community, would promote the real¬
ization of the purposes of the United Nations,

Having considered the principles of international
law relating to friendly relations and co-operation
among States,

790

LECAL

1. Solemnly pr::l~nu the following principles:

The principle :kat States shall refrain
irt their intmitional relations from the
threat or use ;•* : irce against the territorial
integrity or pzlidcal independence of any
State, or in :t7 ::her manner inconsistent
with the pu-czzes of the United Nations
Every State ho* nt: duty to refrain in its interna¬
tional relations f—c: tie threat or use of force against
the territorial mtrrr.iy or political independence of
any State, or in m? ;:her manner inconsistent with
the purposes of hi haired Nations. Such a threat or
use of force cor.srr.r*i j violation of international law
'• and the Charter :: hi L'niced Nations and shall never
be employed as a teems of settling international issues.

A war of aggr;s-:;a constitutes a crime against the
P eace ' ^ or which —i.-; is responsibility under interna¬
tional law.

In accordance vih he purposes and principles of
the United Nations. States have the duty to refrain
from propaganda ::r wars of aggression.

Every State has hi luty to refrain from the threat
or use of force :a •■itlate the existing international
boundaries of anc-mi: State or as a means of solving
international dispttti*. including territorial disputes
and problems conr;rnir.g frontiers of States.

Every Scate likr^-_=.i has the duty to refrain from
the threat or use :: :tree to violate international lines
of demarcation, such is armistice lines, established by
or pursuant tp an international agreement to which
it is a party or which :: is otherwise bound to respect.
Nothing in the ferreting shall be construed as preju¬
dicing the posiotni :: the parties concerned with
regard to the scaro- md effects of such lines under
their special rcg:-;i :r as affecting their temporary
character.

States have a dttrr refrain from acts of reprisal
involving the use :: ::-:ce.

Every State has me duty to refrain from any forci¬
ble action which rirpriv-s peoples referred to in the
elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-
determination of cner eight to self-determination and
freedom and indigene ;ncc.

Every State has a: duty to refrain from organizing
or encouraging tk: :r* miration of irregular forces or
armed bands, inclcnntg mercenaries, for incursion
into the territory c: mether State.

Every Scate has m: duty to refrain from organizing,
instigating, assisting :r participating in acts of civil
strife or terrorist 2:3 la mother State or acquiescing
in organized activtria within its territory directed
towards the commlirim of such acts, when the acts
referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat
or use of force.

The territory of 1 State shall not be the object of
military occupation resulting from the use of force in
contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The
territory of a State moll not be the object of acquisi¬
tion by another Stas faulting from the threat or use
of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the
threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.

QUESTION'S

Nothing .n tar foregoing shall be construed as affect¬
ing:

(a) Provjtons of the Charter or any international
agreement prior to the Charter regime and valid un¬
der incemaricua] law; or

(b) The powers of the Security Council under the
Charter.

All States shall pursue in good faith negotiations
for the earl- car.dusion of a universal treaty on gen¬
eral and c:ztp;r:e disarmament under effective inter¬
national central ar.d strive to adopt appropriate meas¬
ures to rede:; international tensions and strengthen
confidence mtang States.

All States shall comply in good faith with their
obligations -md-er the generally recognized principles
and rules international law with respect to the
maintenance cr international peace and security, and
shall endeavour to mxke the United Nations security
system based aa the Charter more effective.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be con¬
strued as enlarging or diminishing in any way the
scope of the provisions of the Charter concerning cases
in which the ass of force is lawful.

The principle that States shall settle their
international disputes by peaceful means in
such a —.izr.er that international peace and
security ar.d justice are not endangered
Every State shall settle its international disputes
with other States by peaceful means in such a manner
that intcmarisaal peace and security and justice are
not endangered.

States shall accordingly seek early and just settle¬
ment of their international disputes by negotiation,
inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrange¬
ments or other peaceful means of their choice. In seek¬
ing such a serriemen: the parties shall agree upon such
peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circum¬
stances artd nature of the dispuce.

The parties to a dispute have the duty, in the event
of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above
peaceful means. to continue to seek a settlement of
the dispute 07 other peaceful means agreed upon by
them.

States parries to an international dispute, as well as
other States, shall refrain from any action which may
aggravate rite simarion so as to endanger the main¬
tenance of international peace and security, and shall
act in accordance with the purposes and principles of
the United Nations.

International disputes shall be settled on the basis
of the sovereign equality of States and in accordance
with the principle of free choice of means. Recourse
to, or acceptance of, a settlement procedure freely
agreed to by States with regard to existing or future
disputes to which they are parties shall not be regard¬
ed as incompatible with sovereign equality.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs prejudices or
derogates from the applicable provisions of the Char¬
ter, in particular those relating to the pacific settle¬
ment of international disputes.

791

FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES

T m .t principle concerning the July not to intervene
hi malters within the domestic jurisdiction of
State, in accordance with the Charter
- l,J or S rou P of States has the right to inter-
yeae, directly or indirectly, tor any reason whatever,
in tej internal or external affairs of any other Statc.
Coaseqaently, armed intervention and all other forms
of .ctrrrerence or attempted threats against the per¬
sona..-.' of the State or against its political, economic
and ic.turai elements, are in violation of interna-
lic.nai law.

Slits may use or encourage the use of economic.
pc..n:a. or any other cype of measures to coerce an-
' u: “- --—tc :a order to obtain from it the subordina¬
tion :: the exercise of its sovereign rights and to se¬
cure tram it advantages of any kind. Also, no State
organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tol¬
erate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed
co.» eras the violent overthrow of the regime of an-
ottre: State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.

iae use of force to deprive peoples of their national
identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable
neats and of the principle of non-intervention.

State has an inalienable righc to choose its
pc-ittiaJ, economic, social and cultural systems, with-
in “y form b y another State.

Ntmtng jo the foregoing paragraphs shall be cctt-
strre-d is affecting the relevant provisions of the Char¬
ter rs.attag to the maintenance of international peace
and security.

. ~.e duty of States to co-operate with one another
in accordance with the Charter
States have the duty to co-operate with one ac-
otaer. irrespective of the differences in their political,
ereat-mic and social systems, in che various spheres ::
mtr.—aacnal relations, in order to maintain intem-
titio; peace and security and to promote incernacior.ol
ectrtmic stability and progress, che general welfare
nit;:ns and international co-operation free from dli-
nation based on such differences.

Ta this end:

-’ States shall co-opcrate with other States in the
maccrenance of international peace and security;

5 States shall co-operate in the promotion of uzt-
vtrial respect for, and observance of, human ririns
and tundomental freedoms for all, and in the elimir.a-
cta if all torms of racial discrimination and all for^s
o: religious intolerance;

States shall conduct their international rt.i-
citas in the economic, social, cultural, technical and
trad; fields in accordance with the principles of s:v-
rreicn equality and non-intervention;

d) States Members of the United Nations have
the duty to take joint and separate action in co-cp-
enttaa with the United Nations in accordance with
the relevant provisions of the Charter.

States should co-operate in the economic, social and
cultural Gelds as well as in the field of science and
tr-thttology and for the promotion of international cul¬
ture! and educational progress. States should co-op¬
erate in the promotion of economic gTOwth throughout

the world, especially that of the developing countries.

The principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples
By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-
determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of
the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely
ta determine, without external interference, their
political status and to pursue their economic, social
and cultural development, and every State has the
duty to respect this righc in accordance with the pro¬
visions of the Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote, through joint
and separate action, realization of the principle of
equal rights and self-determination of peoples, ia ac-
tordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to
render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out
die responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter re¬
garding the implementation of the principle, in order:

(a) To promote friendly relations and co-operation
among States; and

(b) To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having
due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples
concerned ;

and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to
alien subjugation, domination and exploitation con¬
stitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial
of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the
Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote through joint
and separate action universal respect for and observ¬
ance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in
accordance with the Charter.

The establishment of a sovereign and independent
State, the free association or integration with an in¬
dependent State or the emergence into any other
political status freely determined by a people consti¬
tute modes of implementing che right of sclt-deter-
reination by that people.

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forci¬
ble action which deprives peoples referred to above
in the elaboration of the present principle of their
right to self-determination and freedom and inde¬
pendence. In their actions against, and resistance to,
such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their
right to self-determination, such peoples are earided
to seek and to receive support in accordance with the
purposes and principles of the Charter.

The territory of a colony or other Non-Seli-Gov-
eming Territory has, under the Charter, a status sep¬
arate and distinct from the territory of the Stacc
administering it; and such separate and distinct status
under the Charter shall exist until the people of die
colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exer¬
cised their right of self-determination in accordance
with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and
principles.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be con¬
strued as authorizing or encouraging any action which
would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the
territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and
independent States conducting themselves in eompli-

792

LEGAL QUESTION'S

ance with :he principle of equal rights and self-deter¬
mination of peoples as described above and thus
possessed of j government representing the whole
people belonging to the territory without distinction
as to race, creed or colour.

Every Stats ihill refrain from any action a ime d at
the partial or total disruption of the national unity
and territorial integrity of any other State or country.

The principle of sovereign equality of States

All States enjoy sovereign equality. They have
equal rights mi duties and are equal members of the
international "~.eiun;ty, notwithstanding diff e re n ces
of an economic, social, political or other nature.

In particular, sovereign equality includes the fol¬
lowing demean:

(a) States ire juridically equal;

(f>) Each State enjoys the rights inherent ia full
sovereignty;

(c) Each State has die duty to respect the person¬
ality of other Sutra;

(cf) The ttrrttortii integrity and political inde¬
pendence of tie State are inviolable;

(«) Each State has the right freely to choose and
develop its ptlidcai, social, economic and cultural
systems;

(/) Each Stats has the duty to comply fully and
in good faith with its international obligations and to
live in peace vita other States.

The principle :ha: States shall fulfil in
good faith the obligations assumed by them
in accordance with the Charter

Every State has the duty to fulfil in good faith the

obligattt-ra assumed by it in accordance with the
Charter x the United Nations.

Every State has the duty to fulfil in good faith its
obligatirzs under the generally recognized principles
and rales 3: international law.

Every State has the duty to fulfil in good faith its
obliganms under international agrseraena valid un¬
der the gmsrally recognized principles and rules of
intemazeaal law.

Where obligations arising under international agree¬
ments art ha conflict with the obligations of Members
of the United Nations under the Charter of the United
Nations, the obligations under the Charter shall
prevail.

CEXERAI. PART

2. Desists that:

In their interpretation and application the above
principles are interrelated and each principle should
be construed in the context of the other principles.

Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed as
prejudicing in any manner the provision* of the
Charter nr the rights and duties of Member States
under the Charter or the rights of peoples under the
Charter, tiling into account the elaboration of these
rights in this Declaration.

3. Declares further that:

The principles of the Charter which arc embodied
in this Denitration constitute basic principles of
mternant-na! law, and consequently appeals to all
States :a be guided by these principles in their inter¬
national conduct and to develop their mutual rela¬
tions ca the basis of the strict observance of these
principles.

CHAPTER nr

THE QUESTION OF DEFINING AGGRESSION

CONSIDERATION BY
SPECIAL COMMITTEE

In accordizis with a General Assembly de¬
cision of 12 December 1969/ the Special Com¬
mittee on the Question of Defining Aggression
continued its work in 1970.

Meeting at Geneva, Switzerland, from 13
July to. 14 August 1970, the Special Committee
discussed the three draft proposals which had
been submitted to it at its 1969 session, namely:
(I) a USSR proposal; (2) a 13-power proposal
(Colombia, Cyprus, Ecuador, Ghana, Guyana,
Haiti, Iran, Madagascar, Mexico, Spain,
Uganda, Uruguay and Yugoslavia); and (3)
a six-power proposal (Australia, Canada, Italy,
Japan, the United Kingdom and the United
States). 2

After a general discussion of the three pro¬
posals,. ±e Special Committee decided to con¬
sider them paragraph by paragraph according
to the concepts on which they were based.

The main points considered by the Special
Committee were the following:

(1) Application of the definition of aggression:
(a) n: definition and the power of the Security
Council: ’o) political entities to which the defini¬
tion should apply.

(2) Acs proposed for inclusion in the definition:
(a) the qnestion of “direct or indirect” aggression;

1 See Y.U-V, 1969, p. 774, text of resolution
2 549 (XXIV).

'Ibid., pa. 768-71, for information on the draft
proposals.

ANNEXURE 8

1. Extract Australian Parliamentary debates. House of Representatives
30th September 1921 - pp 11630, 11631.

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

11630

Imperial [REPRESENTATIVES.!

Conference. ■

todgu an appeal against his assessment, and
all appeals arc moat carefully and exhaustively
investigated. If then dissatisfied with the de¬
cision given, he can further appeal. Tho
medical examinations are made by the depart¬
mental medical officers, and the stalls of as¬
sistant departmental medical officers, and
wherever the Commission considers the cir¬
cumstances warrant it too caso is referred to
a specialist for advice.

PAPERS.

The following papers were presented: —

Norfolk Island—Report for the year ended
30th June, 1921.

Papua—Oilfields in—Reports on operations of
the Anglo-Persian Oil Company during
March to July, 1921.

Ordered to be printed.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Status of Dominions — Empire's

Foreign Policy — Anglo-Japanese

Tee at y—The Pacific Problem—Dis¬
armament Conference — Constitu¬
tional Conference.

Mr. HUGHES (Bendigo—Prime Minis¬
ter and Attorney-General) [11.30].— {2ly
leave .)—On the 7th April, 1921, I made
a statement to this House setting out the
principal questions to be considered at the
Conference, and giving reasons why Aus¬
tralia should be represented. Let me re¬
mind you of what I then said—.

Tlie Conference has been summoned to deal
with questions of foreign policy, naval defence,
and the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty.
Certain other subsidiary matters are also set
out on the agenda-paper. One relates to com¬
munications (including » wireless) between
•various parts of the Empire; but I shall direct
my remarks mainly to those matters which are
of fundamental importance.

I emphasized the importance of foreign
policy to Australia in general and the
Anglo-Japanese Treaty in particular, the
dependence of the Empire on sea power,
and expressed my opinion that the Treaty
ought to be renewed, and in such form,
if that should prove By any means pos¬
sible, as would be satisfactory to America.
I concluded by saying—

If I am asked if the Commonwealth is to be
committed to anything done at the Conference,
I say, quite frankly, that this Parliament will
have the amplest opportunity of expressing its
opinion on any scheme of naval defence that*
is decided upon before the scheme is ratified.

. 4 3 . the renewal of the Treaty with Japan,
this is my attitude, and I submit it to the con¬
sideration of honorable members: I am in
favour of renewing the Treaty in any form that
is satisfactory to Britain, America, and our¬
selves. I am prepared to renew it in these

circumstances. If it is suggested that tho re¬
newal should take the form which would in¬
volve the sacrifice of those principles which we
ourselves regard as sacred, I am not prepared
to accept it. In such circumstances, I shall
bring buck tho Treaty to this Parliament. I
think I have put the situation clearly; and
since these matters have sometimes to be
settled quickly, I want honorable members to
say whether they will give me the authority I
a3k for.

With regard to the expenditure involved in
any naval scheme, the House will not be com¬
mitted to the extent of one pouny. The
scheme will bo brought before Parliament, and
honorable members will be able to discuss, and
accept or reject it. •

Honorable members, therefore, were fully
aware of tlie main objects of my mission
and of my attitude towards them. • I
undertook not to commit Australia* to
any expenditure unless approved by Par¬
liament. The Parliament gave me the
authority I asked for, and on the 28th
April I left for London. I have been
absent just five months, and now, at the
earliest possible moment after my return,
I propose to inform the Parliament and
the country of what the Conference did.

I need hardly say that the pledges
given by me have been carried out, not
only to the letter, but in the spirit.
The Commonwealth is not committed to
any expenditure. Everything done is
subject to parliamentary approval, and
Parliament will have the fullest oppor¬
tunity of expressing its opinions.

Before plunging into the details of the
subjects dealt with in London, a few pre¬
fatory words about the Conference itself
seem called for.

The recent meeting of the Prime Minis¬
ters of Great Britain and the overseas
Do-minions differed in many respects from
those which preceded it. Prior to the
war, Imperial Conferences were cere¬
monious and social functions rather than
serious attempts to co-ordinate the activi¬
ties of a far-flung Empire. The experi¬
ences of war showed clearly that as the
safety of every part of the Empire de¬
pended upon united action, means for
insurin'? to each member an effective share
in guiding its course must be devised.
Matters over which we had no control,
in shaping which we had no voice, about
which we were indeed quite ignorant, had
led to a declaration of war by Great
Britain in 1914. A bolt had fallen from
the blue; Britain wa3 at war; as part of
the Empire we were involved. Britain
had done much for us, under her shelter¬
ing wing wa had rested for over a century

Imperial [30 September, 1921.]

Conference.

11631

in perfect peace and security. Our hour
of great trial had come; we had to prove
• ourselves worthy of the traditions of our
race and our liberties, or perish.

The war has changed many things. It
has destroyed dynasties, uprooted ancient
institutions, readjusted the boundaries of
the nations, and created many difficult
problems; but it has also given us a
wider and more splendid concept of Em¬
pire. We Have realized that the British
Empire is a partnership of free nations,
every one being free to act as it pleases,
yet all united in council and in action.
Our isolation did not insure our safety.
Before the war t we had stood aloof
from world politics, yet the mael¬
strom of war engulfed us, and this
young Democracy has proved itself
worthy of its breeding and. of its
liberties. The legions of Australia
fought alongside those of Britain and the
other Dominions. Our ships were on
every sea; our armies in the forefront of
the far-flung battle line in Europe and
Asia. We had been a Dominion; the war
made us a nation within the Common¬
wealth of Nations. The admission of the
representatives of the Dominions into the
Imperial War Cabinet marked the first
great step in the new era. Then came the
Peace Conference on which the Domin¬
ions v/ere granted separate representation,
and sat on a footing of equality with the
great nations of the earth. But not only
was our status as nations thus conceded,
but by virtue of our membership of the
British Empire we exercised an influence
and wielded an authority far greater than
that of the majority of the nations
gathered round the Peace Table, for as
members of the British Empire Delega¬
tion—the name by which the Imperial
Cabinet was known during the Peace
Conference—we enjoyed privileges denied
to all save the great Powers; we were con¬
sulted on the vital matters which came
before the Council of the Four, and our
voices and votes shaped the policy which
the British representatives urged in that
Council. We affixed our signatures to the
Versailles Treaty.

The status granted in War has been
confirmed in times of Peace. Mr. Lloyd
George in his opening Speech to the Con¬
ference said:—

In recognition of their services and achieve¬
ments in the war the British Dominions have
now been accepted fully into the comity of

the nations of the whole world. They are
signatories to the Treaty of Versailles and of
all other Treaties of Peace; they are members
of the Assembly of the League of Nations, and
their representatives have already attended
meetings of the League; in other words, they
have achieved full national status, and they
now stand beside the United Kingdom as equal
partners in the dignities and responsibilities
of the British Commonwealth. If there are
any means by which that status can be ren¬
dered even more clear to their own communi¬
ties and to the world at large, we shall be
glad to have them put forward at this Con¬
ference.

Iii these words, the Prime Minister of
Britain, the President of the Conference,
set out in clear unambiguous language
the concept of a partnership of free na¬
tions, all equal in dignity and responsi¬
bility, to which the Conference subse¬
quently formally and officially set its seal.

I ask this House and this country to
note all that is involved in these words
of the Prime Minister of Britain, ac¬
cepted by his colleagues and indorsed by
the Conference, I ask them to contrast
this concept of a British Commonwealth
comprised of free nations, each enjoying
the status of nationhood, each claiming
and being accorded an equal voice in
shaping Empire policy, with that other
concept, which, not many years ago, stood
unchallenged—of Britain supreme in
power and authority, deciding without
question the -destiny of all. In those days
when one spoke of Empire the British
communities oversea seemed only the ap¬
panages of Britain’s glory; Britain
loomed so large as to dwarf all others.
In the minds of men Britain was the
Empire.

But the years have passed; much water
has run under the bridges, much blood
lias been shed; the Dominions have es¬
tablished their right to be treated as
equals, and Britain, not waiting for
formal demand, has been the first to ac¬
claim and gladly welcome us as her equal,
and bid us sit with her at the Council
table of Empire.

The Imperial Conference of 1921 was
one in which all members met as equals
to discuss not the prosecution of a war,
on which common agreement was easily
attainable, but the intricacies of foreign-
policy in many countries and the mea¬
sures necessary for the safety and pros¬
perity of the whole Empire.

For the first time, then, in the history
of this great Empire the representatives

ANNEXURE 9

1. Letter to Lord Chancellor.

2. Reply on behalf of Lord Chancellor.

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

The Office of the Lord Chancellor
Houses of Parliament
Westminster Palace
LONDON

UNITED KINGDOM

July 13 1997 ,

(VWfu « vUl ^)

Dear Sir, *

My continuing research into the relationship between the United
Kingdom and Australia has turned up a document which contains the following
statement:-

“ The chief law officer of the United Kingdom, the Lord Chancellor, states:

4 “The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900 is an Act
of the United Kingdom Parliament The right to repeal this act remains the
sole prerogative of the Parliament of the United Kingdom . There is no
means by which under United Kingdom or international law this power can
be transferred to a foreign country or Member State of toe United Nations.

Indeed, toe United Nations Charter itself precludes any such action. The
government of toe United Kingdom presented the original document of toe
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900 to Australia in
1988 as a gesture of goodwill on its 200th anniversary.” *

Since this statement is not accompanied by a reference will you please verify its
accuracy and, if it is found so, if it can actually be attributed to the Lord
Chancellor?

Since it seems clear that the two counties are now quite independent, has the
government of the United Kingdom given consideration to the repealing of the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900?

It would be appreciated if y<ju would give a priority to this communication that
will result in an undelayed response.

Yours sincerely.

Peter Batten
P.O. Box 1333
RENMARK
South Australia
AUSTRALIA 5341

Foreign &
Commonwealth
Office

Far Eastern and Pacific Department
London SW1A 2AP

11 December 1997 Telephone: 0171-270 3266

P Batten Esq
P.O. Box 1333
RENMARK
S.A. 5341
Australia

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION

Thank you for your letter to the Lord Chancellor of 13 July.
I have been asked to reply. I apologise for the delay in
replying.

We have been unable to locate the source of the quotation in
your letter attributed to the Lord Chancellor. However, on a
point of detail, the British gift of one of the original
copies of the 1900 United Kingdom Act to Australia took place
by special Act of Parliament in 1990 not in 1988, although
the 1900 Act was on loan to Australia at this latter date.

The statement you mention in your letter is an accurate
description of the power of the British Parliament in relation
to its own legislation. The statement does not, however,
address the special status of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Australia. Nor does it refer to the Australia
Acts, which declared that no future Act of the British
Parliament would extend to Australia.

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act was enacted
in the United Kingdom at a time when Westminster was required
to legislate on Australian issues,- the measure was based on
Australian drafts and was endorsed at the time by a majority
of Australians. The continuing role of the Australia
Constitution Acts as Australia's fundamental law is, of
course, entirely a matter for Australia. There are at present
no plans to repeal the Constitution Act.

The Government of the United Kingdom would, however, give
consideration to the repeal of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act if a request to that effect were made by the
Government of Australia. To date no such request has been
made.

I hope this information is of help to you.

Mark Armstrong

Far Eastern and Pacific Department

ANNEXURE 10

I. Letter from Office of Australian Attorney-General.

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

20/97071622

Jfe

Office of

Attorney-General
2 ! OCT 1937

Mr Peter Batten
PO Box 1333
Rerun ark

South Australia 5341
Dear Mr Batten

RHH7h H’Tr Ctter dated 17 Ju ‘V" 7 t0 Sir Robert FelIow « and to your etter to the
Bnttsh High Commission in which you requested information about the sta us of

certrnn constitutional instruments and the Queen's role as Queen of Austral a Your
letter have been forwarded to the office of the Attorney-General I have been asked to
reply on behalf of the Attorney-General. asked t0

The status of the Commonwealth Constitution

You would be aware that the Commonwealth Constitution was passed as part of a
British Act of Parliament in 1900. A British Act was necessary because bet ore 1900
Australia was merely a collection of self-governing British colonies and ultimate
power over those colonies rested with the British Parliament

However during the course of this century Australia has become an independent
nation and the character of the Constitution as the fundamental law of Austr alia is now
seen as deriving not from its status as an Act of British Parliament, which no longer
has any power over Australia, but from its acceptance by the Australia People. =

Nevertheless, the Constitution remains part of an Act of the British Parliament. That
Act has not been repealed.

Letters Patent

I am advised that Letters Patent constituting the office of Governor General Df
Australia were issued on 29 October 1900 under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom
by Queen Victoria as Queen of the United Kingdom. Amendments to the Leiters °
Patent issued in 1900, made on 4 December 1958, were approved by Queen Elizabeth

II on the advice of the Australian Government. On 24 August 1984 the Letters Patent
issued in 1900 were revoked and new Letters Patent were issued by Queen Fiizabeth II
as Queen of Australia under the Great Seal of Australia. The Letters Patent issued in
1984 have not been superseded.

The Queen's Role

The Queen’s role as Queen of Australia is, in legal terms, distinct from her role as
Queen of the United Kingdom (as it is distinct from her role as Queen of Canada or of

Parliamem House, Canberra ACT 2600 • Telephone (02) 6277 7300 • Fax (02) 6273 4. )2

Governor-General on the advice of the Ausaali^ Govemmem ° ffi “ ° f “*

I hope you find these comments helpful.
Yours sincerely

Adele Byrne
Adviser

2

ANNEXURE i i

1. Extract from Australian Parliamentary debates. The Senate 1st
October 19919

2. Copy of a set of documents relating to Peace Treaties of 1919, as
published in Australian Parliamentary Papers 1920 - 1921.

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

12330

Wheat Pool.

[SENATE.]

Treaty of Peace.

2. No.

3- The next census will be taken in April,
1921, when the question of representation, as
well as redistribution, will need to bo con¬
sidered.

WHEAT POOL.

1918-19 Crop.

Senator PRATTEN asked the Minister
in charge of the Wheat Pool, upon no¬
tice —

What is the total number of bushels of wheat
represented by the uncashed certificates still
remaining in the 1013-10 Wheat Pool?

Senator RUSSELL.—Inquiries are
being made, and a reply will be furnished
in due course.

NAVY MECHANICS.

British Experience.

Senator McDOUGALL asked the Min¬
ister representing the Minister for the
Navy, upon notice —

1. How many mechanics were sent to Great
Britain at the country's expense to study sub-,
marine building and other, naval work?

2. Have any of these men been a3ked for a
report on their experiences in Great Britain?

3. If so, has that report been submitted to
the Department?

4. Is said report available to senators?

5. How many of these men are still in the
employment of the Department?

0. How many have taken positions with other
firms?

7. Is it not the policy of the Department to
avail itself of the experience gained by these
men?

Senator RUSSELL.—The answers

are—

1. Ten.

.2 and 3. They were required to keep notes
of their work, and these notes were collected
prior to their departure from Great Britain,
and sent to the general manager. Cockatoo
Island, Sydney.

4. No formal reports have been received.

5. Six.

6. No information is available.

7. The experience gained is being availed of
a3 # far as possible, though no submarines are
being built in view of existing circumstances.

PACIFIC ISLANDS.

Senator FERRICKS asked the Leader
of the Government in the Senate, upon
no tire —

Will he lay on’the table of the Senate the re¬
commendations of the late General Pethebridge
regarding the control and development of the
Pacific Islands? x

Senator RUSSELL.—No report of the
nature indicated can be traced as havino

O

been received by the Minister of Defence
although it is understood that the late
administrator had in preparation such a
report. Further inquiry will, however,
be made.

^•TREATY OF PEACE JJj£

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales—•
Minister for Repatriation) [3.12].—I
move—

That this Senate approves of the Treaty of
Peace between the Allied and Associated
Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, on
•the 2Sth June, 1910.

In moving the motion it is not my inten¬
tion, even if I were competent to do so,
to refer to the great and stirring events
which led uo to the shaping of this agree¬
ment, or to those scarcely less dramatic
: happenings which accompanied the com-
i pletion of that document. Honorable
! senators have recently had the oppor-
; tunity of hearing from the lips of ’ the
^man most competent to tell the story of
• that side of this important event. I shall
! confine myself to dealing with the Treaty
—what it is, and what it does—and in
doing that I shall endeavour to be as brief
as the magnitude of the subject will per¬
mit. Yet I feel that it impossible, when
we recognise what the presentation of this
: Treaty, and our acceptance of it, really
means to ignore the thoughts and emo¬
tions which will spring up in the minds
i of most of us. For over five years Aus-
j tralia, in conjunction with the allied and
associated Powers, was engaged in the
most titanic struggle known in the history
' of the world. Durin? that period the
people whose representatives we are were
' engaged in a tremendous effort, making
great sacrifices, faced always with the
menace of great danger, and not infre¬
quently confronted or overshadowed by
great fears. Now that we are passing
from the turmoil of war and are ap¬
proaching the goal of peace—that goal
towards which our eyes have been
so steadfastly directed and our hearts
have been bent—we should be other
than the men we are if we were not
conscious of the feelings of profound
relief, of devout thankfulness, and of justi¬
fiable pride. If we would correctly assess
the value of this Treaty to ourselves, let
us for a moment consider what the position
would have been had the situation been
reversed, and, instead of being asked
to ratify a treaty imposed on a beaten

some time. There have been one or two
side issues introduced, and a little side¬
stepping. We are taking a practical step
in the direction of securing Peace, and I
think that we can congratulate ourselves
iind the whole world on the fact that the
terrible holocaust has ceased. Whatever
one's views may be, we cannot look back
upon the horrible scenes of war without re¬
gretting that the world had not reached a
more civilized stage. We had hoped that
3uch a war was impossible, but we were
apparently labouring under a delusion. I
trust that the world after the late great
conflict has learned that wars are of no
benefit to the common people. I do Dot
wish to deal with the Treaty in
detail, because my geographical know¬
ledge of Europe would not enable me to
do so,, even were I so disposed. The
Treaty does not embody all I’ expected,
but I believe that there has been an
honest attempt on the part of all nations
to abolish, war. I am disappointed with
the results of the Conference; but in so
far as the nations of the world have
made a genuine effort to prevent further
wars, I believe the foundations have
been laid for making the world a better
place in whioh to live.

Speaking of the Labour Conference,
and as an Australian who claims to have
more interest in Labour^than ever be¬
fore, I believe the Treaty does not hold
out much for us when I consider
the questions set down' for discussion.
We have reached the standard laid down
in the Treaty/ and hope to improve in
the future. Industrially, we have been
experimenting in many directions, but I
do not think we have been altogether
successful up to date. Judging by ex¬
perience, there seems a reasonable hope
of solving many of the difficulties with
which we are faced to-day. I believe it
would be advantageous if we could help
by our experience in improving the
labour conditions in other countries of
the world. By levelling up the condi¬
tions in other countries, we would be
providing a great national asset for Aus¬
tralia. I sincerely regret that Labour is
not to be represented, and I still hope
that some arrangement may be made to
overcome that difficulty. It was not the
desire of the Government to say how
many representatives of Labour there
should be—that was determined at the
Peace Conference. There was no desire
on the part of the Government to inter¬

fere with the nominations of the Labour
party, and it was in a position to nomi¬
nate whatever delegate it desired. The
date fixed for the Conference was soon
after the return of our representatives
from the Peace Conference; and that
made it rather difficult for a Labour
representative to be elected in Australia.
However, the Conference will meet from
time to time, and Labour organizations
will have the opportunity of sending their
representatives. I could draw attention
to a good deal that has been accomplished
by the Treaty. I believe it gives to the
world a great hope, and the document
proves that all the belligerent nations
have come together in a spirit of con¬
fidence, iri the interests of the general wel¬
fare of the people of the world.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

FRANCE: ANGLO-AMERICAN
TREATY.

Debate resumed from 17th September
{vide page 12341), on motion by Senator
Millen—

That this Senate approves the Treaty made
at Versailles on the 28th June. 1919, between
His Majesty the King and the President of the
French Republic, whereby, in case the stipula¬
tions relating to the left bank of the Rhine,
contained in the Treaty of Peace with Ger¬
many signed at Versailles the 28th day of
June, 1919, by the British Empire, the French
Republic and the United States of America,
among other Powers, may not at first provide
adequate security and protection to France,
Great Britain agrees to come immediately to
her assistance in the event of any unprovoked
movement of aggression against her being made
by Germany.

Senator GARDINER (New South
Wales [8.55].—In speaking to this
motion, I hope I will not have to ask
the Senate for an extension of time. It
appears to me that there is no occa¬
sion for such a motion to be submitted
to. the Commonwealth Parliament. I
direct attention to the fact that in. the
earlier portion of the motion “ British
Empire ” is used; but when it comes to
the question of an agreement as to who
is to resent interference by Germany,
the words “ Great Britain " are used.
I think that is wise. We are passing a
motion that does not bind Australia to
interfere in any unprovoked assault made
by Germany against France. Any one
who is acquainted with the circumstances
surrounding the breaking of treaties, or
how wars have been caused, can easily

1920-21.

1355

THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

PEACE TREATIES.

PAPERS RELATING TO SIGNING AND RATIFICATION
OF THE PEACE TREATIES—

(<■) MEMORANDUM DATED 12th MARCH, 1919, CIRCULATED BY SIR ROBERT
BORDEN, ON BEHALF OF THE DOMINION PRIME MINISTERS.

' W RULES OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE CONTAINED IN ANNEX II. TO PROTOCOL
I. OF THE CONFERENCE, DEFINING THE POSITION AND REPRESENTATION
OF THE SEVERAL POWERS, INCLUDING THE DOMINIONS (DATED 18th
JANUARY, 1919).

M CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT AND THE
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES CONCERNING THE SIGNING-
.AND RATIFICATION OF THE PEACE TREATIES.

W ORDER IN COUNCIL PASSED IN AUSTRALIA, MOVING HIS MAJESTY THE
KING TO ISSUE LETTERS PATENT APPOINTING PLENIPOTENTIARIES IN
RESPECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

Presented, by Command ; ordered to be printed, 29/A April, 1921.

[Co4 of Paj*r Preparation, not 8Ivan ; 800 coplei; Approximate coat ot printing and publishing, £12.J

I'rinted and l'ubJfshed Tor the Go vernment of the Commonwealth of Australia by Albert J. Muilett,

Government Printer fo=* the State of Victoria.

No. 108.— F.6597.— Pbice 6d.

Secret.
W.C.P. 242.

This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty *3 Government.)

MEMORANDUM, DATED 12th MARCH, 1919, CIRCULATED BY SIR ROBERT
BORDEN ON BEHALF OF THE DOMINION PRIME MINISTERS.

BRITISH EMPIRE DELEGATION.

The Dominions as Parties and signatories to the Various Peace Treaties.

Memorandum circulated by Sir Robert Borden on behalf of the Dominion Prime Ministers.

.. JV P e Dominion.Prime Ministers, after careful consideration, have reached the conclusion
tnataU the treaties and conventions resulting from the Peace Conference should be so drafted as to
enable the Dominions to become Parties and Signatories thereto. This procedure will give suitable
recwrmtion to the part played at the Peace Table by the British Commonwealth as a whole and will
at tne same time record the status attained there by the Do mini ons.

, A . [ 2 J Th( r Procedure is in consonance with the principles of constitutional government that
obtain throughout the Empire. The Crown is the Supreme Executive in the United Kingdom and
m ttie Dominions, but it acts on the advice of different Ministries within different constitutional
units; and under Resolution IX. of the Imperial War Conference, 1917, the organization of the
Umpire is to be based upon equality of nationhood.

, , (3) Having regard to the high objects of the Peace Conference, it is also desirable that the

settlements reached should be presented at once to the world in the character of universally accepted
agreements so far as this is consistent with the constitution of each State represented. This object
would not be achieved if the practice heretofore followed of merely inserting in the body of the
convention an express reservation providing for the adhesion of the Dominions were adopted in
these treaties ; and the Dominions would not wish to give even the appearance of weakening this
character of the peace. D

(4) On the constitutional point, it is assumed that each treaty or convention will include
clauses providing for ratification similar to those in the Hague Convention of. 1907. Such clauses
will, under the procedure proposed,'have the effect of reserving to the Dominion Governments and
Legislatures the same power of review as is provided in the case of other contracting parties.

(5) It is conceived that this proposal can be carried out with but slight alterations of previous
treaty forms. Thus :—

(а) The usual recital of Heads of State in the Preamble needs no alteration whatever,

since the Dominions are adequately included in the present formal description of
Uie King, namely, “ His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of
India”.

(б) The recital in the Preamble of the name? of the Plenipotentiaries appointed by the

High Contracting Parties for the purpose of concluding the treaty would include
the names of the Dominion Plenipotentiaries immediately after the names of the
Plenipotentiaries appointed by the United Kingdom. Under the general heading
“The British Empire” the sub-headings “ The United Kingdom,” “The
Dominion of Canada,” “ The Commonwealth of Australia,” “ The Union of South
Africa, &c., would be used as headings to distinguish the various
Plenipotentiaries.

(c) It would then follow that the Dominion Plenipotentiaries would sign according to the
same scheme.

(6) The Dominion Prime Ministers consider, therefore, that it should be made an instruction
to the British member of the drafting Commission of the Peace Conference that all treaties should
be drawn according to the above proposal.

Hotel la Perouse,

Paris, 12th March, 1919.

4

(S)

RULES OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE CONTAINED IN ANNEX II. TO
PROTOCOL I. OF THE CONFERENCE, DEFINING THE POSITION AND
REPRESENTATION OF THE SEVERAL POWERS, INCLUDING THE
DOMINIONS (DATED 18th JANUARY, 1919).

ANNEX No. II. TO PROTOCOL No. I. OF PRE¬
LIMINARY PEACE CONFERENCE,' PARIS,
18th JANUARY, 1919.

Rules of the Conference.

I.

The Conference summoned with a view to lay down
the conditions of peace, in the first place by peace
preliminaries and later by a definite Treaty of Peace,
shall include the representatives of the allied or asso¬
ciated belligerent Powers.

The belligerent Powers with general interests (the
United States of America, the British Empire, France,
Italy, Japan) shall attend all sessions and commissions.

The belligerent Powers with special interests (Bel¬
gium, Brazil, the British Dominions and India, China,
Cuba, Greece, Guatemala, Hayti, the Hedjaz, Hon¬
duras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Poland, Portugal,
Roumania, Serbia, Siam, the Czecho-SIovak Republic)
shall attend the sessions at which questions concerning
them are discussed.

Powers having broken off diplomatic relations with
the enemy Powers (Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay)
shall attend sessions at which questions interesting them
will be discussed.

Neutral Powers and States in process of formation
shall, on being summoned by the Powers with general
interests, be heard, either orally or in writing, at ses¬
sions devoted especially to the examination of questions
in which they are directly concerned, and only in so
far as those questions are concerned.

II.

The Powers shall be represented by Plenipotentiary
Delegates to the number of—•

Five for the United States of America, the British
Empire, France, Italy, Japan;

Three for Belgium, Brazil, Serbia; .

Two for China, Greece, the Hedjaz, Poland,
Portugal, Roumania, Siam, the Czecho-SIovak
Republic;

One for Cuba, Guatemala, Hayti, Honduras,
Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama;

One for Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay.

The British Dominions and India shall be represented
as follows:— .

Two delegates each for Canada, Australia, South
Africa, India (including the native States);

One delegate for New Zealand.

Each delegation shall be entitled to set up a panel,
but the number of plenipotentiaries shall not exceed the
figures given above.

The representatives of the Dominions (including New¬
foundland) and of India can, moreover, be included in
the representation of the British Empire by means of
the panel system.

Montenegro shall be represented by one delegate,
but the manner of hi3 appointment shall not be decided
until the present political situation of that country
becomes clear.

The conditions governing the representation of Russia
shall be settled by the Conference when Russian affairs
come up for discussion.

HI.

Each delegation of plenipotentiaries may be accom¬
panied by duly accredited technical delegates and by
two shorthand writers.

The technical delegates may attend sessions in order
to supply information when called upon. They may
be asked to'speak in order to give necessary explana-

IV.

The order of precedence shall follow the alphabetical
order of the Powers in French.

V.

The Conference shall be opened by the President of
the French Republic. The President of the French
Council of Ministers shall thereupon provisionally take
the chair.

The credentials of members present shall at once be •
examined by a committee composed of one plenipoten¬
tiary for each of the allied or associated Powers.

VI.

At the first meeting the permanent president and
four vice-presidents shall be elected from among the
Plenipotentiaries of the Great Powers in alphabetical
order.

VII.

A secretariat chceen outside the ranks of the pleni¬
potentiaries, consisting of one representative e®jh of
the United States of America, the British Empire,
France, Italy, and Japan shall be submitted for the
approval of the Conference by the president, who shall
be in control of and responsible for it.

The secretariat shall draw up the protocols of the
sessions, classify the archives, provide for the adminis¬
trative organization of the Conference, and; generally,
insure the regular and punctual working of the services
intrusted to it.

The head of the secretariat shall be responsible for
the safe custody of the protocols and archives.

The archives shall bo accessible at all times to mem¬
bers of the Conference.

VIII.

Publicity shall be given to the proceedings by means
of official communiques prepared by the secretariat and
made public. In case of disagreement as to the wording
of such communiques, the matter shall be referred to
the chief plenipotentiaries or their representatives.

IX.

All documents to be incorporated in the protocols
must be supplied in writing by the plenipotentiaries
originally responsible for them.

No document or proposal may be so supplied except
by a plenipotentiary or in his name.

X.

With a view to facilitate discussion, any plenipoten¬
tiary wishing • to propose a resolution must give the
president twenty-four hours' notice thereof, except in
the case of proposals connected with the order of the
day and arising from the actual discussion.

Exceptions may, however, be made to this rule in the
case of amendments or secondary questions which do
net constitute actual proposals.

XI.

All petitions, memoranda, observations, and docu¬
ments addressed to the Conference by any persons other
than the plenipotentiaries must be received and classi¬
fied by the secretariat. . .

Such of these communications as are of any politic&j
interest shall be briefly summarized in a list circulated
to all the plenipotentiaries. Supplementary editions oi
this list shall be issued as such communications are
received.

All these documents shall be deposited in the archives.

1359

5

XII.

All questions to be decided shall be discussed at a
first and second reading; the former shall afford occa¬
sion for a general discussion for the purpose of arriving
at an agreement on points of principle; the second read¬
ing shall provide an opportunity of discussing details.

XIII.

The plenipotentiaries shall be entitled, subject-to the
approval of the Conference, to authorize their technical
delegates to submit direct any technical explanations
considered desirable regarding any particular question.

If the Conference shall think fit, the study of any
particular question from the technical point of view
may be intrusted to a Committee composed of technical
delegates, who shall be instructed to present a report
and suggest solutions.

XIV.

The protocols drawn up by the 'secretariat shall be
printed and circulated in proof to the delegates with
the least possible delay. < /

To save time, this circulation of tie protocols in
advance shall take the place of reading them at the
beginning of the sessions. Should no alterations be
demanded by the plenipotentiaries, the text shall be
considered as approved and deposited in the archives.

Should any alteration be called for, it shall be read
aloud by the president at the beginning of the following
session.

The whole of the protocol shall, however, be read if
one of the plenipotentiary members shall so request.

XV.

A committee shall be formed to draft the motions
adopted.

This committee shall deal only with questions which
have been decided; its sole task shall be to draw up the
text of the decisions adopted and to present them to
the Conference for approval.

It shall consist of five members who shall not be '
plenipotentiary delegates, and shall comprise one repre¬
sentative each of the United States of America, the
British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan.

i

6

M

GORRESPOxVDENGE BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT

° F STATE F0R ' THE COLONIES CONCERNING
SIGNING AND RATIFICATION OF THE PEACE TREATIES

AND

THE

S.C. 101/113/

DECODE OF CABLEGRAM FROM THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, DATED
LONDON, 20th JANUARY, 1919, 7.10 p.m.

Following is purport of regulations for dealing with
representation of British Empire at Peace Conference.
Belligerent Powers with general interest shall take part
in all sittings and commissions. These comprise besides
British Empire United States of America France Italy
and Japan. Belligerent Powers with particular in¬
terests shall take part in sittings at which questions
concerning them discussed. This group includes besides
Eelgium Brazil and other foreign States British Do¬
minions and India. Five Powers named above shall
each be represented by five plenipotentiary delegates
Eelgium Brazil and Serbia by three each Greece, Rou-
mania and certain other States two each and one each
for Cuba and certain other States. Article proceeds
“ British Dominions and India shall be represented
as follows two delegates each for Australia Canada
South Africa and India (including the Native States)
one delegate for New Zealand. Although the number
of delegates may not exceed figures above mentioned
each delegation has the right to avail itself of the panel
system. Representation of the Dominions (including
Newfoundland) and India may besides be included in
the representation of the British Empire by the panel
system ” delegates take precedence according to alpha¬
betical order in French of the Powers.

Prime Minister,
Melbourne, 23rd April, 1919.

Me maraud am for:

The Acting Official Secretary to the
Governor-General.

Iam directed to request ycu to invite His Excellency
the Governor-General to be so good as to sign the at¬
tached Order (the issue of which was approved at the
meeting of the Executive Council held to-day), and
when the seal ha3 been fixed, to despatch the document
to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is desired
also that the terms of the Order be communicated to
the Secretary of State for the Colonies by cablegram.

M. L. SHEPHERD,

Secretary.

ORDER

Commonwealth of
Australia to wit.
(l.s.) R. M. Ferguson,
Governor-General.

By His Excellency the Go¬
vernor-General of the
Commonwealth of Aus¬
tralia.

Whereas in connexion with the Peace Congress it is
expedient to invest fit persons with full powers to treat
the part of His Majesty the King in respect of the
Commonwealth of Australia with persons similarly em¬
powered on the part of other States:

Now therefore I, Sir Ronald Craufurd Munro Fe
guson, the Governor-General aforesaid, acting with tl
4? FecIeral Executive Council, do here!
• „ 1 Ma i« st y fch e King be humbly moved i

nlZ L, ll” £ at f nfc to each of the blowing person
P P y \r fc p 9 o lght H(> ? ora ble William Morris Hughe
Australia. ^ of Commonwealth <

PC G CM? Sir Joseph Cool

G.C.M.G., M.P., Minister of State for the Na\

of the Commonwealth of Australia, naming and ap¬
pointing him as Commissioner and Plenipotentiary m
respect of the Commonwealth of Australia with full
power and authority as from the first day of January
1919, to conclude with such plenipotentiaries as may
be vested with similar power and authority on the part
of any Powers or States, any treaties, conventions, or
agreements in connexion with the said Peace Congress
and to do for and in the name of His Majesty the King
in respect of the Commonwealth of Australia everything
so agreed upen and concluded and transact all suen
otner matters as may appertain thereto.

Given under my Hand and the Seal of the Com¬
monwealth, at Melbourne, this 23rd day of
(l.s.) April, in the year of our Lord One thousand
nine hundred and nineteen, and in the ninth
year of His Majesty's reign.

By His Excellency's Command,

W. A. WATT,

Acting Prime Minister.

• S.C. 101/45.

DECODE OF CABLEGRAM FROM THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, DATED
LONDON, 28th JUNE, 1919, 6.50 Pt m.

E. 15.

June 28th. Peacy Treaty with Germany signed by
representatives of Allied and Associated Powers and by
representatives of Germany to-day at 4 o'clock. Con¬
cluding article of Treaty provides that first preces
verbal of deposit of ratification will be drawn, up as
3oon as Treaty has been ratified by Germany on one
hand and by three of principal Allied and Associated
Powers on the other hand that from, date of this first
proces verbal Treaty will come into force between high
contracting parties who have ratified it that for deter¬
mination of all periods of time as provided for in Treaty
this date will be date of coming into force of Treaty
and that in all other respects Treaty will enter into
force for each Power at date of deposit of its ratifi¬
cation.

Date of ratification i.e. of coming into force of Peace
Treaty cannot be stated yet.

S.C. 101/61.

[Secret.]

DECIPHER OF CABLEGRAM FROM THE
GOVERNOR-GENERAL, SOUTH AFRICA,
DATED PRETORIA, 29th JULY, 1919, 6 p.m.
E. Ord. 144.

29th July. Have been requested by Secretary of
State for the Colonies to deliver following message to
Mr. Hughes and to repeat it to you. Am arranging
communicate to Mr. Hughes. Message begins—

Now that Germany has ratified Treaty of Peace it
is of the greatest importance that it should be ratified
by us with the least possible delay as till this is done
there can be no definite peace. As you are aware His
Majesty can constitutionally ratify any treaty without
consent of Parliament. British Government has, how¬
ever, thought it desirable submit treaty to Parliament
where it will be without doubt approved in the course
of this week.

It is of course for you to decide whether you wish to
submit treaty to the Parliament of Australia before
its ratification by His Majesty. If so it would be
necessary for you to do so immediately on your return.
Ends.

7

S.C. 101/65*.

[Secret.]

DECIPHER OF CABLEGRAM FROM THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES DATED

LONDON, 7th AUGUST, 1919, 5.55 p.m’

MN83.

7tli August. Urgent. My telegram 23rd July
Peace Treaty sent to Hughes through Governor-Gene¬
ral L rucn of South Africa and repeated to you. Fol¬
lowing reply’ has been received begins.

Your telegram 23rd July. Propose lay Treaty of
Peace before Parliament for ratification. Hughes
Ends. s

Please telegraph earliest date on which formal assent
of Commonwealth Parliament to ratification may be
expected. Matter is urgent in view of severe pressure
being put on us from Paris to ratify at earliest possible
date Canada holding special session to consider treaty
1st September and French ratification expected 2nd
September or 3rd September.

S.C. 101/66.

[Secret.]

DECIPHER OF CABLEGRAM FROM THE SECRE-

?£SL 0F STATE E °R THE COLONIES, DATED

LONDON, 12th AUGUST, 1919, 8.25 p.m.

MN4.

12th August. Urgent. In 'continuation of my tele¬
gram of 7th August. ‘ J

Government of Union of South Africa which has
convened special session of Parliament to consider Peace
Treaty with Germany being of opinion that it will be
very desirable to secure uniformity in dealing with this
question have asked me to submit suggestions as to form
in which the Peace Treaty should receive Parliamen¬
tary approval in Dominions, that is whether approval
should take-form of Eill on lines of that submitted to
Parliament here or of motion submitted to Parliament
for that purpose. I have replied to effect that matter
is of course one for decision of local Government but
that in my opinion best course would ba to obtain
approval of Treaty by resolution of both Houses and
that if as is probable legislation on lines of British
Bill i 3 required in order to give effect to Treaty this
could follow later.

It is important to bear in mind that the British
Bill is not a Bill to ratify Peace Treaty but to empower
the Government to take the necessary steps to carry
out those provisions of the Treaty which require legis¬
lative authorty. ’ a

My reason for suggesting resolution of both Houses
is that this procedure might enable ratification to take
place without the delay that might be involved in ob¬
taining Parliamentary powers for carrying out Treaty.

I should be grateful if you will inform me what
procedure will be adopted by your Government. If as
I hope procedure by resolution is adopted, I assume
that there will be no objection Hri Majesty’s ratifying
immediately we receive cable to effect that such resolu¬
tion has been passed and I have telegraphed in same
sense to other Dominions.

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT Pv rm *
PRIME MINISTER TO th! SECRET
STATE FOR THE

In reply to your telegram 12th August- View Com

i d n ? °PP° rtu n:ty of consulting
j * F® ar ? Vea We3te ™ Australia next

with him md 6 i ir ^ ie3t opportunity of conferring

with him and communicate final decision.

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT BY THE ACTING
PRIME MINISTER TO THE SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR THE COLONIES ON 15th AUGUST.
1919.

Your telegram 7th August: Am summoning Parlia¬
ment for special consideration of Peace Treaty on Wed¬
nesday, 10th September. Impossible to arrange meet¬
ing before. Difficult to predict at this stage time
required for its passage through both Houses but may
be able to give you indication a little later on. You
may rely upon utmost despatch by Commonwealth
Government.

S.C. 101/73.

[Secret.]

D tT-rv PROaj: THE SECRE-

t S J ATE P0R THE COLONIES, DATED

LONDON, 26th AUGUST, 1919 12 45 p m
MN3.

26th August. Your telegram 18th August Peace
.treaty with Germany.

Canada will proceed by way of resolution of both
houses in order that matter may be expedited legisla¬
tion giving effect to treaty being introduced later
Procedure by way of resolution will also be adopted
by New Zealand.

MN30.

[Secret.]

S.C. 101/76.

DECIPHER OF CABLEGRAM FROM THE SECRE
0F ST ATE FOR THE COLONIES, DATED
LONDON, 1st SEPTEMBER, 1919, 6.45 p.m.

1st September. My telegram of 26fch August Peace
treaty with Germany. Union of South Africa also
will proceed by way of joint resolution.

S.C. 101/77.

[Urgent.]

DECODE OF CABLEGRAM FROM THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, DATED
LONDON, 6th SEPTEMBER, 1919, 11.55 p.m
MN8.

6th September. Urgent. Confidential. Parliamen¬
tary approval of Treaty of Peace with Germany. Have
heard nothing from you since your two telegrams 18th
August. New Zealand resolution already passed and
Canadian and South African resolutions expected bv
Thurrday next.

Please telegraph as soon as possible when Australian
approval may be expected.

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT TO THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, 8th
SEPTEMBER, 1919. ’

Your telegram. 6th September: Parliamentary
approval of Peace Treaty with Germany. Proceding by.
resolution to be moved next Wednesday. Ratification
probably within fortnight.

COPY OF CABLEGRAM RECEIVED FROM THE
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES
27th SEPTEMBER, 1919.

September 27th. According to present arrangements
date for signature of Treaty with Bulgaria October
25th. Whom would your Ministers wish to appoint to
sign on behalf of Australia?

S.C. 101/93.

DECODE OF TELEGRAM RECEIVED FROM THE
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES,
DATED LONDON, 30th SEPTEMBER, 1919,
12.25 r m.

MN4.

With reference to your telegram 9th September Peace
Treaty when may approval of Commonwealth Parlia¬
ment be expected.

8

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT TO THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES,
3 bo OCTOBER, 1919.

Your telegram 27th. September. High Commissioner
for Australia is authorized to sign Treaty with Bulgaria
on behalf of Australia.

THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH.

House of Representatives.

Extract from the Votes and Proceedings, iVe>. 1SG,
dated 19th September, 1919.

3. Peace Treaty between Allies and Germany. The
Order of the Day having been read for the resumption
of the debate on the following motion of Mr. Hughes—
“ That this House approves of the Treaty of Peace
between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany
signed at Versailles on the 28th June, 1919 "—and on
the Amendment moved thereto by Mr. J. H. Catts,
viz.:—“ That the following words be added to the
motion, ‘ That owing to the limited amount of infor¬
mation placed before Parliament in relation to the
Peace Treaty, its commitments and responsibilities, the
whole matter be referred to a Committee of both Houses
of the Parliament for inquiry and report’ "—

Debate resumed.

Question—That the words proposed to be added be so
added—put and negatived.

Debate on original motion continued. *

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and
passed. '

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT TO THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE -FOR THE COLONIES,
2nd OCTOBER, 1919.

Ycur telegram 30th September. Peace Treaty and
Anglo-French Treaty approved by both Houses of Com¬
monwealth Parliament.

S.C. 101/96.

DECODE OF TELEGRAM RECEIVED FROM THE
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES
DATED LONDON, 4th OCTOBER, 1919, 7.45 p.m.

MN. 70.

With reference to your telegram October 3rd, most
satisfactory to know that Treaty of Peace yith Ger¬
many approved by Commonwealth Parliament. Parlia¬
ments of Canada, New Zeeland, and Union of South
Africa have approved also.

S.C. 101/98.

E.29.

DECODE OF CABLEGRAM FROM THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, DATED
LONDON, OCTOBER 11th, 1919, 2.30 p.m.

October 11th. With reference to my telegram 4th
October General Instrument for ratification of Treaty of
Peace with Germany and its protocol, Rhine Territory
Agreement, and Treaty concerning Poland signed by
the King October 8th.

S.C.101/115.

DECODE OF CABLEGRAM RECEIVED FROM
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE
COLONIES, DATED LONDON, 27th NOVEM¬
BER, 1919, 10.55 a.m.

73.

November 27th. In view of present precarious
situation in Central and South-eastern Europe His
Majesty’s Government are anxious that Treaty with
Austria and other connected Treaties should be ratified
ns soon as possible and as 30on as legislation with
regard to Austrian Treaty on lines of that with regard
to German Treaty has been passed by Parliament here
they would be glad to be in position to advise His
Majesty the King to ratify Austrian-Czecho-Slovao and
Serb-Croat-Slovene Treaties contained in my despatches

of October 17 th Dominions 786, 783, 785. His
Majesty’s Government would be glad to know as soon as
possible whether your Ministers concur in proposed rati¬
fication. Please telegraph reply.

S.C. 101/124.

[Urgent.]

DECODE OF CABLEGRAM FROM THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, DATED
LONDON, 9th DECEMBER, 1919, 5.50 p.m.

Ord. 33.

J latter most urgent. December 9th. Certain modi¬
fications have been made in agreement signed St. Ger¬
main, September 10th, regarding contributions to cost
of liberation of territory of former Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy see paragraph 1 (5) of my despatch October
17th Dominions 786. Declaration accepting this modi¬
fication now ready for signature of representatives of
Allied and Associated Powers and will remain open
until December 22nd. As original agreement signed
by representatives of Dominions necessary that modifi¬
cations should be also signed on their behalf. Whom
would your Ministers wish to appoint as their represen¬
tative 1 ! Sir Eyre Crcrwe present head of British Peace
Delegation, Paris, has already authority to sign on be¬
half of India and if your Ministers see no objection it
might be convenient for him to sign above declaration
on behalf of Dominions also. If your Ministers agree
same arrangement might be made in respect of
Roumanian Minorities Treaty now ready for signature
and any other documents of similar minor character
requiring signature on behalf of Dominions which might
arise out of Peace settlement. Telegraph reply with
least possible delay.

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT TO THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES,
12th DECEMBER, 1919.

Your telegram 9th December. High Commissioner
for Australia is authorized to sign modification of Aus-,
trian Peace Treaty on behalf of Australia, or failing his
ability to do 30 , Sir Eyre Crowe is authorized to sign. _

S.C. 101/126.

[Urgent.]

DECODE OF CABLEGRAM FROM THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, DATED
LONDON, DECEMBER 13th, 1919, 21.15 p.m. -

MN. 16.

J Latter most urgent. With reference to your tele¬
gram December 12th, Signature of modification of
Austrian Treaty of Peace: Presume that your reply
applies also to other documents mentioned in my tele¬
gram of December 9 th.

Telegraph reply with least possible delay.

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT TO THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES,
15th DECEMBER, 1919.

Your telegram 13th December. Signature of modifi¬
cation of Austrian Treaty of Peace. You are correct in
assuming my reply applies also to other documents men¬
tioned your telegram December 9th.

S.C. 101/130.

DECODE OF TELEGRAM RECEIVED FROM THE
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES,
DATED LONDON, THE 23rd DECEMBER, 19l y *
2.25 p.m.

MN95.

With reference to my telegram November 27 th Tati
fication of Treaty Austria and other connected Treaties,
please reply with least possible delay.

COPY OF TELEGRAM SENT TO THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES 6tk
JANUARY, 1920.

" Your telegram 28th. November: Commonwealth
Ministers concur iu proposed ratification of Austrian,
Czecho Slovac, and Serb Croat Slovene Treaties."

DECODE OF TELEGRAM RECEIVED FROM THE
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES,
DATED LONDON, Uth FEBRUARY 1920
11.10 A.M.

February 14th.. With reference to my despatch
October 20th Dominions 788 notification received from
Bulgarian Government that they are ready to ratify
Treaty of Peace. Would be glad to learn as early as
possible whether your Ministers agree that His Majesty
the King should' ratify. Treaty with protocol annexed
signed November 27th enclosed my despatch Januaiv
28th, Dominions 42.

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT TO THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES 25th
FEBRUA^, 1920. ,

Your telegram 14th February. Commonwealth
Government agrees that His Majesty should ratify
Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria.”

S.C. 101/186.

[Urgent.]

DECODE OF TELEGRAM RECEIVED FROM THE
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES
DATED LONDON, THE 5th MAY, 1920, 7.5 p.h. ’

May 5th. Text of Turkish Treaty expected to be
ready for presentation to Turkish Delegates at Paris
Ma 7 llth. Desired to inform them, on this occasion
who will eventually sign for Dominions. Please tele-
graph at once whether High Commissioner will be
authorized to sign.

COPY OF CABLEGRAM RECEIVED BY HIS
EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL
FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE
COLONIES, DATED LONDON, 7th MAY, 1920.

May 7th. If Hungarian Delegation agrees to sign
Peace Treaty May 16tn signature may take place about
20th May. Please telegraph whether High Commis¬
sioner authorized to sign.

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT TO THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, 11th
MAY, 1920.

“ Your telegram 5th May. High Commissioner for
Australia is authorized to sign Turkish Treaty on behalf
of Commonwealth.”

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT TO THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, 13th
MAY, 1920.

“ Your telegram 7th May. High Commissioner
authorized to sign Hungarian Treaty.”

S.C. 22/2.

DECODE OF CABLEGRAM FROM THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, DATED
LONDON, JUNE 8th, 1920, 5.50 p.m.

MN133.

June 8 tb. Hungarian Treaty of Peace signed Grand
Trianon Palace June 4th. Foreign countries signing
were United States of America France Italy Japan
Belgium Cuba China Greece Nicaragua Panama
Poland Portugal Roumania Serb Croat Slovene State
Siam Czecho Slovakia. High Commissioner signed on
behalf of Commonwealth of Australia.

F.6597.—2

[Se-oret.]

S.C. 20/10.

D EXaEL^NOV TE mSi RAM R ECEIVED BY HIS
SSsLJ™ VERNOR-GENERAL

rnrrvKTTTzJr SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE
COLONIES, DATED LONDON, 6th JULY

On various occasions recently minor
ies conventions etcetera arising out of peace settle

of Dominions and several others are
Fading one as to Bessarabia. It i 5 difficult to
“ l T hen 3Uch fcreatie3 et c©tera will be readv

brint^K^!?* * Ut l ° ng prM3Ure is oft6n exercised to
bnng about signature at short notice on account of

political considerations involved, see for example mv
J el ®S ai f, .-J™ 29th Schleswig. It hS been sug!
gested that it would be of convenience and also save
time if Dominion Governments were willing to give
a general authorization to His Majesty’s Ambassador
at Pans to sign on their behalf any minor treaties con¬
ventions etcetera. Lord Derby has already full power
to sign on behalf of India all treaties etcetera arising
out of Peace Conference. Please telegraph view of you?
Ministers. It would bo of course understood that if
suggestion acceptable Dominican Governments would
continue to be informed in advance of nature of docu¬
ments to be signed so that they would have opportunity
of arranging for special signature on their behalf in
any case where they desired such signature. Similar
telegram sent to other Dominions.

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT TO THE SECRE¬
TE?! °nL 3TATE FOR THE COLONIES, 19th
JULY, 1920.

" Your telegram 6 th July. Signing of minor treaties.
Commonwealth Government is desirous that these
treaties, conventions, See., be signed by High Commis¬
sioner on behalf of Australia, and that in all matters
of importance Commonwealth Government be afforded
opportunity of expressing opinion before treaties sub¬
mitted to High Commissioner for signature.”

[Urgent.]

S.C. 20/40.

DECODE OF TELEGRAM RECEIVED BY HIS
EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL
FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE
COLONIES, DATED LONDON, THE 9th OCTO¬
BER, 1920, 5.40 p.m.

October 9th. Urgent. Bessarabian Treaty referred
to in my telegram J uly 6 th now nearly ready for signa-
ture - Final text not received yet from Paris but
according to first draft which alone available London
sovereignty of Roumania recognised over Bessarabia
and guarantee of liberty and justice insured by Rou-
mania to inhabitants. Remaining articles concerned
mainly with questions relating to future nationality of
nationals of former Russian Empire habitually resident
in Bessarabia and with assumption by Roumania of
proportional part affecting Bessarabia of Russian public
debt and other Russian public liabilities. Please tele¬
graph whether Ministers agree to signature on their
behalf.

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT TO THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, 13th
OCTOBER, 1920.

"Your telegram October 9th. Commonwealth Go¬
vernment agrees signature Bessarabian Treaty.”

10

S.C. 22/6.

DECODE OF CABLEGRAM RECEIVED BY
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR-GENE¬
RAL FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
THE COLONIES, DATED LONDON, 18th
NOVEMBER, 1920, 2.10 p.m.

ORD. 56/18.

November 18fch. My despatch July 29th Treaty 24.
Hungarian Treaty ratified by Hungarian National As¬
sembly November 13th. Should be glad to know as
soon as possible by telegraph whether your Ministers
agree to ratification by His Majesty the King.

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT TO THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, 20th
NOVEMBER, 1920.

“ Your telegram 18th November Commonwealth Go¬
vernment agree© to ratification of Hungarian Treaty by
His Majesty the King."

S.C. 20/65.

DECODE OF CABLEGRAM RECEIVED BY
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR-GENE¬
RAL FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
THE COLONIES, DATED LONDON, 1st DECEM¬
BER, 1920, 5.30 p.m.

ORD. 52/1.

Deoember 1st. With reference to my despatch Sep.
tember 15th Dominions Treaty 37, proposed that rati¬
fication of Central European Frontiers Treaty by His
Majesty the King should take place simultaneously with
ratification of Hungarian and Bessarabian Treaties;
see my telegram December 1st. Should be glad to know
as early as possible by telegraph whether your Ministers
agree to ratification.

COPY OF CABLEGRAM SENT TO THE SECRE¬
TARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, 6th
DECEMBER, 1920.

“ Your telegrams 1st December: Commonwealth Go¬
vernment agrees to ratification of Bessarabian Treaty-
and Central European Frontiers Treaty by His Majesty
the King."

11

w

PASSED IN Australia, moving his majesty the
Ssppot aI SS ^ lettebs patent appointing plenipotentiaries in

RESPECT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRifLIA.

Commonwealth of
Australia ta wit.
R. It. Ferguson,
Govern or-General

ORDER

By His Excellency the Go¬
vernor-General of the
Commonwealth of Aus¬
tralia.

Whereas m connexion with the Peace Congress it is
expedient to invest fit persons with full powers to treat
onthe part of His Majesty the King in respect of the
Commonwealth of Australia with persons similarly
empowered on the part of other States:

Now therefore I, Sir Ronald Craufurd Munro Fer-
guson, the Governor-General aforesaid, acting with the
advice of the Federal Executive Council, do hereby
order that His Majesty the King be humbly moved to
issue letters.patent to each of the following persons,
namely the Right Honorable William Morris Hughes,
P.C., M.P., Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of
Australia, and the Right Honorable Sir Joseph Cook,
P.C., G.C.M.G., M.P., Minister of State for the Navy

cf the Commonweaith of Australia, naming and ap¬
pointing him as Commissioner and Plenipotentiary in
respect of the Commonwealth of Australia, with full
power and authority as from the first day of January,
1919, to conclude with such plenipotentiaries as may be
vested with similar power and authority on the part of
any powers or States, any treaties, conventions or
agreements in connexion with the said Peace Congress
and to do for and in the name of His Majesty the King
m respect of the Commonwealth of Australia everything
so agreed upon and concluded and transact all such
other matters as may appertain thereto.

Given under my Hand and the Seal of the Com-
• monwealth, at Melbourne, this 23rd day of

(l.s.) April, in the year of our Lord One thousand
nine hundred and nineteen, and in the ninth
year of His Majesty's reign.

By His Excellency’s Command,

W. A. WATT,

Acting Prime Minister.

ANNEXURE 12

1. Extract from Australian Parliamentary debates. The House of
Representatives 30th September 1921, pp 11630, 11631.

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

11630

l inpe rial (REPRESENTATIVES, j

Corjcrci: ca.

lothjfj an ;i jj peal against hi a assessment, and
all appeals are moat carefully and exhaustively
investigated. If then dissatisfied with the de¬
cision given, he can further appeal. The
medical exam illations are made by the depart¬
mental medical odicers, and the stall's of as¬
sistant departmental medical officers, and
wherever the Commission considers the cir¬
cumstances warrant it the case is referred to
a specialist for advice.

PAPERS.

The following papers were presented: —
Norfolk Island—Report for the year ended
30th June, 1921.

Papua—Oilfields in—Reports on operations of
the Anglo-Persian Oil Company during
March to July, 1921.

Ordered to be printed.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Status of Dominions — Empire's
Foreign Policy — Anglo-Japanese
Treaty—The Pacific Problem—Dis¬
armament Conference — Constitu¬
tional Conference.

Mr. HUGHES (Bendigo—Prime Minis¬
ter and Attorney-General) [11.30 ].—(fiy
leave.)— On the 7th April, 1921, I made
a statement to this House setting out the
principal questions to be considered at the
Conference, and giving reasons why Aus¬
tralia should be represented. Let me re¬
mind you of what I then said—.

The Conference has been summoned to deal
with questions of foreign policy, naval defence,
and the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty.
Certain other subsidiary matters are also set
out on the agenda-paper. One relates to com¬
munications (including » wireless) between
-various parts of the Empire; but I shall direct
my remarks mainly to those matters which are
of fundamental importance.

I emphasized the importance of foreign
policy to Australia in general and the
Anglo-Japanese Treaty in particular, the
dependence of the Empire on sea power,
and expressed my opinion that the Treaty
ought to be renewed, and in such form,
if that should prove By any means pos¬
sible, as would be satisfactory to America-.
I concluded by saying—

If I am asked if the Commonwealth is to be
committed to anything done at the Conference,
I say, quite frankly, that this Parliament will
have the amplest opportunity of expressing its
opinion on any scheme of naval defence that-
is decided upon before the scheme is ratified.

As to the renewal of the Treaty with Japan,
tnis is my attitude, and I submit it to the con¬
sideration of honorable members: I am in
favour of renewing the Treaty in any form that
u satisfactory to Britain, America, and our-
I am propared to renew it in these

circumstances. If it is suggested that tho re¬
newal should take the form which would in¬
volve the sacrifice of those principles which we
our3eIvos regard as sacred, I am not prepared
to accept it. In such circumstances, I shall
bring buck the Treaty to this Parliament. I
think I have put the situation clearly; and
since these matters have sometimes to be
settled quickly, I want honorable members to
say whether they will give me the authority I
ask for.

With regard to the expenditure involved in
any naval scheme, the House will not be com¬
mitted to the extent of one penny. The
scheme will bo brought before Parliament, and
honorable members will be able to discuss, and
accept or reject it.

Honorable members, therefore, were fully
aware of the main objects of my mission
and of my attitude towards them. I
undertook not to commit Australia' to
any expenditure unless approved by Par¬
liament. The Parliament gave me the
authority I asked for, and on the 28th
April I left for London. I have been
absent just five months, and now, at the
earliest possible moment after my return,
I propose to infofm the Parliament and
the country of what the Conference did.

I need hardly say that the pledges
given by me have been carried out, not
only to the letter, hut in the spirit.
The Commonwealth is not committed to
anv^ expenditure. Everything done is
subject to parliamentary approval, and
Parliament will have the fullest oppor¬
tunity of expressing its opinions.

Before plunging into the details of the
subjects dealt with in London, a few pre¬
fatory words about the Conference itself
seem called for.

The recent meeting of the- Prime Minis¬
ters of Great Britain and the overseas
Dominions differed in many respects from
those which preceded it. Prior to the
war, Imperial Conferences were cere¬
monious and social functions rather than
serious attempts to co-ordinate the activi¬
ties of a far-flung Empire. The experi¬
ences of war showed clearly that as the
safety of every part of the Empire de¬
pended upon united action, means for
insuring to each member an effective share
in guiding its course must be devised.
Matters over which we had no control,
in shaping which we had no voice, about
which we were indeed quite ignorant, had
led to a declaration of war by Great
Britain in 1914. A bolt had fallen from
the blue; Britain was at war; as part- of
the Empire wa were involved. Britain
had done much for us, under her shelter¬
ing wing wo had rested for ever a century

Imperial [30 September, 1921.]

Conference.

11631

in perfect peace and security. Our hour
of great trial had come; we had to prove
• ourselves worthy of the traditions of our
race and our liberties, or perish.

The war has changed many things. It
haa destroyed dynasties, uprooted ancient
institutions, readjusted the boundaries of
the nations, and created many difficult
problems; but it has also given us a
wider and more splendid concept of Em¬
pire. We Have realized that the British
Empire is a partnership of free nations,
every one being free to act as it pleases,
yet all united in council and in action.
Our isolation did not insure our safety.
Before . the war x we had stood aloof
from world politics, yet the mael¬
strom of war engulfed us, and this
young Democracy has proved itself
worthy of its breeding and of its
liberties. The legions of Australia
fought alongside those of Britain and the
other Dominions. Our ships were on
every sea; our armies in the forefront of
the far-flung battle line in Europe and
Asia. We had been a Dominion; the war
made us a nation within the Common¬
wealth of Nations. The admission of the
representatives of the Dominions into the
Imperial War Cabinet marked the first
great step in the new era. Then came the
Peace Conference on which the Domin¬
ions were granted separate representation,
and sat on a footing of equality with the
great nations of the earth. But not only
was our status as nations thus conceded,
but by virtue of our membership of the
British Empire we exercised an influence
and wielded an authority far greater than
that of the majority of the nations
gathered round the Peace Table, for as
members of the British Empire Delega¬
tion—the name by which the Imperial
Cabinet was known during the Peace
Conference—we enjoyed privileges denied
to all save the great Powers; we were con¬
sulted on the vital matters which came
before the Council of the Four, and our
voices and votes shaped the policy which
the British representatives urged in that
Council. We affixed our signatures to the
Versailles Treaty.

The status granted in War has been
confirmed in times of Peace. Mr. Lloyd
George in his opening Speech to the Con¬
ference said:—

Iu recognition of their services and achieve¬
ments in the war the British Dominions have
now been accepted fully into the comity of

the nations of the whole world. They are
signatories to the Treaty of Versailles and of
all other Treaties of Peace; they are members
of the Assembly of the League of Nations, and
their representatives have already attended
meetings of the League; in other words, they
have achieved full national status, and they
now stand beside the United Kingdom as equal
partners in the dignities and responsibilities
of the British Commonwealth. If there are
any means by which that status can be ren¬
dered even more clear to tlieir own communi¬
ties and to the world at large, we shall be
glad to have them put forward at this Con¬
ference.

In these words, the Prime Minister of •
Britain, the President of the Conference,
set out in clear unambiguous language
the concept of a partnership of free na¬
tions, all equal in dignity and responsi¬
bility, to which the Conference subse¬
quently formally and officially set its seal.

I ask this House and this country to
note all that is involved in these words
of the Prime Minister of Britain, ac¬
cepted by his colleagues and indorsed by •
the Conference, I ask them to contrast
this concept of a British Commonwealth ©
comprised of free nations, each enjoying
the status of nationhood, each claiming
and being accorded an equal voice in
shaping Empire policy, with that other
concept, which, not many years ago, stood
unchallenged—of Britain supreme in
power and authority, deciding without
question the destiny of all. In those days
when one spoke of Empire the British
communities oversea seemed only the ap¬
panages of Britain’s glory; Britain
loomed so large as to dwarf all others.

In the minds of men Britain was the
Empire.

But the years have passed; much water
has run under the bridges, much blood
has been shed; the Dominions have es¬
tablished their right to be treated as
equals, and Britain, not waiting for
formal demand, has been the first to ac¬
claim and gladly welcome us as her equal,
and bid us sit with her at the Council
table of Empire.

The Imperial Conference of 1921 was
one in which all members met as equals
to discuss not the prosecution of a war,
on which common agreement was easily
attainable, but the intricacies of foreign-
policy in many countries and the mea¬
sures necessary for the safety and pros¬
perity of the whole Empire.

For the first time, then, in the history
of this great Empire the representatives

ANNEXURE13

1. Copies of extracts Parliamentary Debates House Representatives

10th September 1919. Specific reference p 1219.

2. Copy of Treaty of Peace Act, No 20 of 1919.

3. Copy of Treaty of Peace Act No 39 of 1920

4. Extract from Commonwealth Parliamentary paper ‘ Trick or
Treaty Commonwealth Power to Make and Implement Treaties’.

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

Adjournment.

fhi September, 1919.] Treaty of Peace.

12163

is immaterial to the Government, whether
any of these individuals is a member o f
an association or not. A pledge was
given to men wlio did certain things at a
certain time. That pledge will be
honoured.

Senator Bakhap.— Hear, hear ! I hope
so!

Senator MILLEN.—But the Govern¬
ment does not intend that other persons
who came in afterwards, and enrolled in
an association which had been formed by
the men to whom the Government had
given that pledge, shall reap where they
have nob sown.

Senator Bakhap. —But, surely, in¬
vestigation will prove the merits of the
matter!

Senator MILLEN.—That is just what
I was about to say. We cannot accept
the statements of the men who claim the
benefits of our pledge as sufficient in
themselves. Senator Bakhap would net
sugg'-t that. Every man will be given
opportunity to prove his claim—to show
whether or not lie did come to the rescue
of the Government at the time when it
asked him to do so. I am desirous that
the pledge cf the Government shall be
carried out, both in the letter and in the
spirit. We do not propose, however, to
permit those who in no sense came to
the country's help at first, but came
afterwards—those who are hangers-on to
the others—to secure the benefit of the
pledge given to other men.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.14 p.m.

Incuse of Kcprcsrntaiibra.

"Wednesday, 10 September, 1010.

Mr. Speaker (Hon. W. Elliot Johnson)
took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

ASSENT TO BILLS.

Assent to the following Bills re¬
ported :—

Moratorium Bill.

Commercial Activities Bill.

Wireless Telegraphy Bill.

[J 59 ]—2

PAPERS.

The following papers were presented:—
Peace Treaty.—Between the Allied and Asso¬
ciated Powers and Germany, signed at Ver¬
sailles, 2Sth June > 1910.

Ordered to be printed.

Customs Act—Regulations Amended—Statu¬
tory Rules 1919, No. 209.

Defence Act—Regulations Amended—Statu-
tory Rules 1919,’ Nos. 204, 206. 207 208.
Rnicrt.uijiim.-nts Tux Assessment Act—Regula¬
tions Amended—Statutory Rules 1919, No.
211.

Rands Acquisition Act—Land acquired under,
at—

Adelaide, South Australia—for Repatria¬
tion purposes.

Brisbane, Queensland—for Repatriation
purposes.

Port Adelaide, South Australia—For Cus¬
toms purposes.

Northern Territory—Ordinance of 1919—No.

10—Deputy Administrator.

Public Service Act—Promotions—Department
of the Treasury—

G. C. Allen, M. D. Briggs, E. 0. Walters.

W. Hayes. J. A. YV. Stevenson.

H. Kinnish, II. C. Higgins, C. T. C. Hills,

F. G. H. Garrett.

War Precautions Act—Regulations amended
—Statutory Rules 1919, No. 203.

TREATY OF PEACE.

Mr. HUGHES (Bendigo—Prime Minis¬
ter and Attorney-General) [3.4].—I de¬
sire, by leave, to move—

That this House approves of the Treaty of
Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers
and Germany, signed at Versailles on the 28th
June, 1919.

I wish also lo move—

That this House approves the Treaty made
at Versailles on the 2Slli June. 19If), between
His Ma jesty the King and the President of the •
French Republic, whereby, in case the stipula- '
tions relating to the left bank of the Rhine, con¬
tained in the Treaty of Peace with Germany,
signed at Versailles on tile 2Sth day of June,
1919. by the British Empire, the French Re¬
public. and the United States of America, among
other Powers, may not at first provide ade¬
quate security and protection to France, Great
Britain agrees to come immediately to her
assistance in the event of any unprovoked move¬
ment of aggression against her being made by
Germany.

I think it would be heifer for the House
to deal with the two motions in the one
debate. They can be put separately.

Mr. Tudou.—C an we do that, Mr.
Speaker?

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. W. Elliot
Johnson).—It would be a rather novel and
inconvenient procedure lo have two

12161

Treaty of

[REPRESENTATIVES.] Peace.

motions before flic House a: die one time,
a 1th on ah, if the two relate practically. to
the same matter, their separate discussion
might lead to overlapping and repetition
of the same matter. Perhaps the two could
he incorporated in one motion divided into

two parts. .

Mr. HUGHES —Very well. sir. My

purpose will he served if I move the first
motion, and merely give nonce at the

second. . .

Mr. SPEAKER.—Is ir r!:c pleasure ot

the rtoiisc that the Prime Minister have
leave to move his motion without notice?

IInxoir.xr.i.K Mkmhkks.—H ear. hear!

Mr. Si’ If A K Eli.—Leave is grunted.

Mr. HUGHES.—1 move —

Xliilt this House approves of the Treaty or
Peace between tiie Allied a ml Associated Powers
and Germany, signed at Versailles on the 2Stli
June, 11)19.

Plunged as I am into an atmosphere with
which I am very familiar, yet from which
1 have been absent for many months, I feel
that 1 must preface what I have to say in
regard to the .motion by expressing my
satisfaction at being once more among
those with whom I have been associated so
long.

Since I left for England no less than
four men who have been members oi this
House during the period in which most of
ns have had the honour of representing the
people here have died. I refer to Tor cl
Forrest, Sir George Reid, Mr. Manifold,
and Mr. Palmer. Their deaths have come
in at least two cases without warning. All
were men who did their work manfully,
and endeavoured to serve iiieir country to
the very best of their ability. I wish
to express my deep regret at their death,
and to say how much I sympathize with
those whom they have left behind.

I find myself to-day confronted with a
task which, for many reasons, presents a
thousand difficulties. 1 have laid on the
table ci’ the House a copy of the dreary of
Versailles, which is not as other Treaties
that have marked the cessation of war
and the making of peace between contest¬
ing nations in the days that have gone.
It°is a document of monumental import¬
ance, the like of which the world has
never before seen. It not only makes
peace between Germany and the Allied
and Associated Powers, but it also reap¬
portions great areas of territory m
Europe, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa.

It is the charter of a new world. We
must examine it in that light, if we wish
to ascertain whether it is worthy of the
ideals for which the Allies fought and
the sacrifices which they made to realize

them.

It would be quite impossible to pre¬
sent- to this House the reasons for the ac-
ceptance of this Treaty without a glance
at the circumstances which existed at
and before our departure from Australia,
and also of those which immediately pre¬
ceded the negotiations, long drawn out,

Of which this Treaty is the result. Be¬
fore imv right honorable colleague (&ir
Joseph" Cook) and myself left Aus¬
tralia, the fortunes or the Allies
had reached their nadir. It is no
abuse* of words to say that thc-ir position
was almost desperate. How desperate it
was can hardly be realized by tho=e
who have lived these five years m
a land remote from the faintest
echoes of this world-wide stnte, and who,
sheltered behind the barrier of the valour
and heroism of the millions who fought
so gloriously for freedom and for those
other great ideals upon which civilization
rests, pursued the ever, tenor of their ''ay,
baskino- in sunshine, and enjoying indeed
a prosperity, which was unhappily not
shaved by ‘the great majority ot the
peoples cf the world.

A month or so before we left Australia,
and at the very time when a Recruiting
Conference, called by His Excellency the
Governor-General, was being held at
Government House, in this city, the great
German offensive was launched against
the sorely-tried British front. On ike
21s5 March, 19IS, the legions oi the
cnemv, inspired by the hope of speecy
vicrorv, and having at their disposal an
overwhelming superiority of numbers at
that point, hurled themselves against the
Fifth Army, which, resisting valiantly,
was after some days, bruised and beaten,
and driven back in headlong retreat.
It is well-nigh impossible for honorable
members to realize to the full ab
that the piercing of the Allied line
meant, not merely to Europe and

to the capital of France, which it
direcllv threatened, but to all the
world.' Let me try to set out as
well as I can in the poor words that 1 can.
summon at this moment, the position aa
it then was. There is no need for the
language of exaggeration. It was a posi-

V'.'i'/z

i'cCCt

I j £i u oj

'rLixPB..t-S£jN iATI n x-t

which Australia had fought was guaian-
Lee;cl ami, us is well known to the peouii
of. ,\ushrnIia, T tonic the earliest possible
upper La inly of making a bfruiig and em¬
phatic protest against wliat had been
done.

I wish to make clear to the House
what I did. for my attitude, as well as
my utterances, have been much misrepre-
se.i.ed in Australia. I did not claim
that 1 lie representatives of the Dominions
should have been summoned to Ver¬
sailles. Nothing was further from our
thoughts. The settlement of the terms
of the Armistice was a military matter,
with which I was totallv unfitted to deal,
as, indeed, were all the representatives
-of the Dominions. But in regard to
the terms of Peace, the Dominions
had been assured—nay, every one cf
them had a right to expect, apart from
anv assurance—that tliev would be con¬
sulted before those terms were settled.
"We were not consulted, and, speaking
in London 011 , I think, the day follow¬
ing the issue of the Allied Hofe, I
said—

Wc went into this war to tight for liberty
and the rights of small nations. We are a
small nation, conscious of our national spirit.,
and jealous of our rights and liberties. Ger¬
many threatened our territorial integrity and
our * political liberty. We, along with the
Allies, have won, after four years of fearful
sacrifice, a decisive victory. We have a right
to demand a victorious peace. We have a
right to demand that in the terms of Peace
our territorial integrity shall be guaranteed,
that those islands, which are the gateways to
our citadel, shall be vested in us, not because
we want territory, but because we desire safety.
The terms of Peace do not guarantee that this
shall be done.

Before the war we had the right to make
what laws we pleased. These Peace terms seem
to imperil, or, at best, impair, that right. We
claim the right, and shall insist upon it, to
make what Tariff distinctions wc like; and we
feel sure that in this demand we shall have, not
only the support of the people of Britain, but
that of America, that great Republic, the
foundations of whose greatness rest upon their
War of Independence, waged to establish this
very right. And, lastly, \v« claim that indem¬
nities shall be exacted from Germany, who
plunged the whole world into bloody war.

Victory is ours—complete and overwhelming.
Wc have fought for liberty, for right; and
national safety; yet in the terms of Peace
these rights and ideals are not safeguarded.
All is vague and uncertain, where it should be
clear and definite.

Australia stands, after four years of dread¬
ful war, her interests not guaranteed, her
rights of self-government menaced, and with
uo provision made for indemnities. That is

J tr. Hughes.

the position, and it can hardly be regarded :i:>
satisfactory.

Wlrut Australian will sny that X did.
wrung? Wilt } a hull say lliai Australia,
ahurTiuviiig suffered over four and a half
years of war, and having made such sacri¬
fices, should not be clearly and freely
guaranteed those things without which she
could not live as a free nation? I did not
sav that President Wilson’s fourteen,
points prevented us from getting these ^
I said that they did not guarantee
them. They guaranteed to France the
return of Alsace Lorraine, and to other
nations many things. Later I shall show
rhis House and the country how those;
fourteen points hampered and limited us
throughout the Peace negotiations, and
how great was the price we and the whole
world paid for their adoption. I have
always been one of the first to re¬
cognise the many and great services-
rendered bv President Wilson to this
world, and rendered by America in
the war. I am one of those who
believe that had America had a chance
ru express her opinion, she, too, like our¬
selves, would have been in favour of a
victorious Peace, rather than one based on
President Wilson’s fourteen points.

Because this Treaty and this Confer¬
ence differed from others in that 1 i-
rested upon the foundations of open-
covenants, openly arrived at, I need make
no apology for stating clearly to this House
and to the people of this country, whom we
all serve, some of those things which, in
other Treaties, are placed in secret
archives. It is only right that the whole-
world should know how this Treaty has-
been arrived at, and what it really means.

I have said that I thought it proper
that Australia should have been consulted,,
as other belligerents have been, concerning
the terms of Peace. It may be said, of
course, that the terms of Peace were not
based on President Wilson’s fourteen;
points. But the facts speak for them¬
selves. I shall quote some that wil3
be sufficient. It was abundantly evident
to my colleague and to myself, as well as-
to the representatives of other Dominions,
that Australia must have separate re¬
presentation at the Peace Conference.
Consider the vastness of the Empire,
and the diversity of interests represented.
Look at. it geographically, industrially r
politically, or how you will, and it will be
seen that no one can speak for Australia

Trculi/ of

[10 September, 1919 .]

Peace.

1-109

but. those who speak as representatives of
Australia herself. Great Britain could not,
in the very nature of tilings, speak for us.
Britain lias very many interests to con¬
sider besides ours, and some of those in¬
terests do not always coincide with ours,
ft was necessary, therefore—and the same
applies to other Dominions—that we
should he represented. Not as at first sug¬
gested, in a British panel, where we would
take our place in rotation, but with
separate representation like other bel¬
ligerent nations. Separate and direct re¬
presentation was at length conceded to
Australia and to every other self-govern¬
ing Dominion.

By tliis recognition Australia became
a nation, and entered into a family
of nations on a footing of equality. We
had earned that, or, rather, our soldiers
had earned it for us. In the achievement
of victory they had played their part, and
no nation had a better right to be repre¬
sented than Australia. This representa¬
tion was vital to us, particularly when we
consider that at this world Conference
thirty-two nations and over 1,000,000,000
people were directly represented. It was
a Conference of representatives' of the
people of tlie whole world, excepting only
Germany, the other enemy Powers, Rus¬
sia, and a few minor nations. In this world
Conference, the voice of this young com¬
munity of 5,000,000 people had to make
itself heard. In this gathering of men
representing nations with diverse and
clashing interests, Australia had to press
her views, and to endeavour to insist upon
their acceptance by other nations. With¬
out such representation that would have
been impossible.

Let me give honorable members
some idea cf the Conference, which
consisted of more than seventy dele¬
gates—about as many as there are honor¬
able members of this Chamber—men of all
colours, and from every part of the world.
There were representatives from China,
Japan, Liberia, Hayti, Siam, Brazil,
America, Britain, India, Roumauia,
Poland, and Greece. There were men
speaking diverse tongues, and having
ideals as far asunder as the poles. There
were interests which had their origin in
thousands of years of tradition, and in
'race and geographical position. Here
was Australia, an outpost of the Empire,
it great continent peopled by a hand¬
ful cf men, called upon to defend,

amongst- other things, a policy which could
not be understood, ancl which was not
understood, by those with whom we con¬
sorted. 1 speak of the policy of a White
Australia. Imagine the difficulties of the
position, and the clashing of warring in¬
terests; for. while the world changes,
human nature remains ever the same.
While there was a sincere desire to obtain
u just Peace, each nation’s conception of
justice differed. Eacli nation desired what
it considered neeessarv icr its own salva¬
tion, though it might trench on the liber¬
ties, rights, or material welfare of others.

The full Conference was too unwieldy
a body lor the delicate and difficult
work of drafting the Treaty, or
arriving at agreements upon which
it might be drafted. Therefore, the
work was really done by the Council
of Ten—that is to say, by the repre¬
sentatives of the five Great Powers, Great
Britain, Prance, the United States of
America, Italy, and Japan—by special
Commissions of foreign ministers deal¬
ing with territorial claims, and by infor¬
mal diplomatic conversations and inter¬
views between various delegates seeking
to support and promote the welfare
of their own countries. Commis¬
sions were appointed to deal • with
dozens of different matters. My risrht
honorable friend, the Minister for the
Navy (Sir Joseph Cook) was ap¬
pointed upon the Czechc-Slovak Com¬
mission. I do not know whether he will
speak to you now in the tongue of the
Czecho-Slovaks, but, if so. we shall give
him, if not an enthusiastic, at least
a cordial reception. I had been
chairman of the British Reparation Com¬
mittee, which held its meetings in Lon¬
don prior to the Conference, and I was
vice-chairman of tlie Allied Commission
which met in Paris, and comprised re¬
presentatives of all the nations chiefiv in¬
terested in reparation.

The draft Treaty was presented to
Germany on 7th May, 1919, and
was, as you know, the subject .«;.f
many communications between Count
von Broekdcrfr Rantzau and the Allies.
In its modified form it was finally
accepted, and signed at Versailles
on 2$th June, 1919. The Treaty is be¬
fore tlie House. It is a document monu¬
mental in more senses than one. It is
not onlv the charter of a new world, it

1919. Tasmanian Loan Redemption. No. 19.

6. The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent
with this Act, prescribing all matters which by this Act are required
or permitted to be prescribed, or which are necessary or convenient
to be prescribed, for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.

TREATY OF PEACE.

No. 20 of 1919.

An Act to carry into effect the Treaty of Peace

with Germany.

[Assented to 28th October, 1919,]

W HEREAS at Versailles, on the twenty-eighth day of June,
nineteen hundred and nineteen, a Treaty of Peace with
Germany (including a protocol annexed thereto) a copy of which
has been laid before each House of the Parliament, was signed by
representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia on behalf of His
Majesty the King, and it is expedient that the Government of the
Commonwealth should have power to do all such things as are
necessary and expedient for giving effect to the said Treaty on the
part of the Commonwealth:

Be it therefore enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty,
V_^-he Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth
of Australia, as follows

1. This Act may be cited as the Treaty of Peace Act 1919.

2 . The Governor-General may make such regulations and
do such things as appear to him to be necessary- for carrying
out and giving effect to the provisions of Part X. (Economic Clauses)
of the said Treaty.

3. The regulations may provide for the punishment of offences
against the regulations, by the impositions of the following
penalties :—

(a) If the offence is prosecuted summarily—a fine not exceed¬
ing -Five hundred pounds or imprisonment for any term
not exceeding twelve months; or both ;

(&) If the offence is prosecuted upon indictment—a fine of any
amount or imprisonment for not more than seven years,
or both.

71

Regulations.

Preamble.

Short title. ’
Regulations.

Contraventions
of regulations.

I 14

Duration of
Judiciary Act
1015.

Awards
may be made
Rules of Court.

Jurisdiction of
State Coufta In
criminal cases.

Short title and
citation.

Commencement.

Application of
Act to
Territories.

1920. Judiciary. No. 38.

3. Section one of the Judiciary Act 1915 is amended by omitting
sub-section (4.) thereof, and that Act shall continue in force as
if that sub-section had not been enacted.

4. After section thirty-three of the Principal Act the following-
section is inserted :—

fcC 33 a. The High Court may by order direct that an award in an
arbitration in respect of any matter over which the High Court has
original jurisdiction, or in respect of which original jurisdiction
may be conferred upon the High Court, shall be a Rule of the High
Court.”.

5. Section sixty-eight of the Principal Act’is amended—

(a) by inserting in sub-section (1.) thereof, after the word

“ shall ” the words “ , subject to this section, ”; and

(b) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section :—

11 (4.) The several Courts of a State exercising the jurisdiction
conferred upon them by this section shall, upon application being-
made in that behalf, have power to order, upon such terms as they
think fit, that any information laid before them in respect of an
offence against the laws of the Commonwealth shall be amended so
as to remove any defect either in form or substance contained in
that information.”.

TREATY OF PEACE (GERMANY).

No. 39 of 1920. .

An Act to amend the Treaty of Peace Act 1919.

[Assented to 10th November, 1920.]

B E it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate,
and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of
Australia, as follows :—

1 ._(i.) This Act may be cited as the Treaty of Peace ( Germany)
Act 1920.

(2.) The Treaty of Peace Act 1919, as amended hy this Act,
may he cited as the Treaty of Peace (Germany ) Act 1919-1920.

2. This Act shall be deemed to have commenced on the- day on
which the Treaty of Peace Act 1919 commenced.

3. After section one of the. Treaty of Peace Act 1919 the foliow-
• ing section is inserted :—

" i: Ia. This Act shall apply to the Territories-under the authority
of the Common wealth, including any territory governed by the
Commonwealth under a mandate.”.

THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

TRICK OR TREATY?

COMMONWEALTH POWER TO MAKE AND
IMPLEMENT TREATIES

© Commonwealth of Australia 1995
ISBN 0 642 24418 9

Report by the

Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee

November 1995

Executive summary

Page 3

treaties provide for their own dispute resolution measures, such as referral to
arbitration.

0.13 Federal countries may ratify a treaty that covers subject matter in relation
to which the federal Government is not constitutionally competent to legislate.
’Federal clauses’ are sometimes used to overcome the difficulties that may arise
in such situations and provide that the federal Government is only bound by the
provisions of the treaty that come within its legislative competence.

0.14 International organisations play an important role in international law
matters. They are established by treaties and have independent legal
personality, meaning that they can enter into treaties in their own right. Two
major international organisations are the United Nations and the International
Labour Organisation. The fundamental goal of the United Nations is to ensure
international peace and security. The purpose of the International Labour
Organisation is to establish labour standards.

Chapter 4 - Treaties and the Commonwealth Constitution

0.15 The power to enter into treaties is an executive power within s. 61 of the
Constitution. This is to be distinguished from the legislative power to
implement treaties in domestic law which is granted in s. 51(xxix) of the
Constitution and is known as the external affairs power.

0.16 At Federation in 1901, the Commonwealth Government did not possess
the executive power to enter into treaties. This prerogative power remained
with the United Kingdom. It is unclear on which particular date Australia
became an independent nation capable of entering into treaties on its own
behalf. However, it is accepted that Australia became an independent nation
some time between World War I and World War II. Further, it seems that the
Government was probably able to enter into treaties on its own behalf before it
acted on this power.

0.17 The original draft of the Constitution contained two main references to
’treaties'. There has been some suggestion that the removal of these references
from the final Constitution evidences an intention on the part of the Framers of
the Constitution to exclude from the Parliament the authority to legislate with
respect to treaties. However, there is general consensus that this is not the case.
High Court cases have confirmed that the external affairs power does include
the power to implement treaties.

Introduction to International Law

Page 43

The International Labour Organisation

3.53 Membership of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) is open only
to nation states which are recognised as such in international law. In practice
most members of the United Nations are also members of the ILO. 40

3.54 The International Labour Conference (ILC) meets annually, usually in
Geneva. It is composed of representatives of each of the members of the
Organisation. Each member nation is entitled to a delegation of four
comprising two Government representatives, and one representative each of
employers and workers in the country concerned. The employers' and workers'
delegates are appointed by governments in consultation with the representative
industrial organisations in their respective countries. In Australia, these
comprise the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) and the
Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU).

3.55 One of the principal functions of the ILC is the adoption of formal
instruments establishing international labour standards. These instruments take
the form of Conventions and Recommendations. The ILC has general
oversight over the operation of the Organisation, including approval of its
budget. 41

3.56 The Governing Body of the ILO is composed of twenty-eight government
representatives, 14 workers' representatives and 14 employers' representatives.
The Governing Body meets in Geneva three times a year. It is responsible for
the planning and direction of the work of the organisation on a day-to-day
basis.

3.57 With the exception of two terms (1960-63 and 1969-72), Australia has
been a government member of the Governing Body since 1945, and has
provided the Chairman of the Governing Body on two occasions, 1975 and
1989. In addition to the Government, both the President of the ACTU and the
Executive Director of the ACCI are presently members of the governing Body
(1993-95). 42

40 This description is based on the submission from the Australian Council of Trade
Unions. Submission No. 76, Vol 4, pp 802-803.

41 ACTU, Submission No. 76, Vol 4, pp 802-803.

42 ACTU, Submission No. 76, Vol 4, pp 802-803.

Page 46

Trick or Treaty? Commonwealth Power to Make and Implement Treaties

confused with the other constitutional power to legislate to implement treaties
under s. 5 l(xxix) of the Constitution.

4.5 Section 51(xxix) of the Constitution confers on the Commonwealth
Parliament the power to legislate with respect to 'external affairs’. This has
been interpreted by the High Court to mean that the Commonwealth Parliament
may legislate, under s. 51(xxix) of the Constitution, to implement m domestic
law a treaty which has been entered into by the Executive pursuant to its power
under s. 61 of the Constitution.

The evolution of the executive power to enter into treaties

4.6 While it is well settled by the High Court that the power to enter into
treaties is an Executive power under s. 61 of the Constitution, it is difficult to
determine the exact date at which this power transferred from the Imperial
Government to the Commonwealth Government. The power, in fact, has
evolved as Australia has moved towards nationhood.

4 7 At federation, in 1901, the power to enter into treaties was possessed by
the Imperial Crown because the United Kingdom Government remained
responsible for the conduct of Australia's foreign relations.

4.8 Even before federation, however, there was some consultation between
the Imperial Government and the colonies on the subject of treaties. From the
colonial perspective, the most important treaties concerned international trade
and shipping. The colonies which had been granted responsible government
argued in the 1870s that they should be consulted before the Imperial
Government entered into a commercial treaty which bound them^and that t ey
should have powers of their own to negotiate commercial treaties.

4 Mr M. Goldstiver, Submission No. 50, Vol 2, p 431; Idr M- OoktaUvcr^Siubm. sion
No. 104 , Vol 6, p 1315; Mr A. Pitt, Submission No. 47, Vol 2, p 423 Mr'T. King,
Submission No. 53, Vol 3, p 443, Mr J. Pickering, Submission No. 54, Vol 3, p 448.

5 The High Court's interpretation of the external affairs power is discussed in detail in
Chapter 5 of this report.

6 That is, those colonies with Parliaments where the Government was formed by the
majority in the Lower House, and the members of the Lower House were elected by

people.

7 G. Doeker, The Treaty-Making Power in the Commonwealth of A ustralia. The Hague,
Martinus Nijhoff, 1966: pp 26-29.

Page 48

Trick or Treaty? Commonwealth Power to Make and Implement Treaties

capacity. 11 The British Foreign Office rejected this view, on the grounds that
both before and after federation, treaties were made in the name of the monarch
of Great Britain, and this had not changed. The Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs stated:

A Treaty binding upon an Australian Colony, prior to Federation, was not from
an international point of view between the particular colony and the particular
foreign country concerned, but between the British Government and that
power. The obligation of the Sovereign was in respect of a certain portion of
his Dominions, viz. a certain Australian Colony, and that obligation was not
based upon the particular character of the government in force in that Colony,
nor can it be lessened by the entry of the Colony into a Federation, which is
also part of his Dominions. 12

4.12 During World War I, the significant contributions of the Dominions to
the war effort resulted in them being invited to participate in the Imperial War
Cabinet and the Imperial War Conference. The Imperial War Conference
passed a resolution in 1917 that a subsequent Imperial Conference be convened
which would consider the ’readjustment of the constitutional relations of the
component parts of the Empire' and base any readjustment on the recognition
of the Dominions as ’autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth' with
the right to ’an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations'.

4.13 After the First World War, Australia was separately represented at the
Peace Conference, and the Dominions began to exercise greater powers in the
area of external affairs. Australia became an independent member of the
League of Nations and the International Labour Organisation in 1919. In
both these fora, the Dominions were given separate votes and their
representatives were accredited by, and responsible to, their own Dominion
Governments, rather than the Imperial Government. They did not always vote

11 Opinion dated 16 January 1902, Attorney-General's Department, Opinions of the
Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, Vol 1, AGPS, Canberra, 1981: p

47.

12 Quoted in: G. Doeker, The Treaty-Making Power in the Commonwealth of Australia,
The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1966: p 50.

13 G. Doeker, The Treaty-Making Power in the Commonwealth of Australia, The Hague,
Martinus Nijhoff, 1966: p. 10.

14 For a discussion on the status of the Dominions in signing the Treaty of Versailles and
becoming separate members of the League of Nations, see: A.B. Keith, Responsible
Government in the Dominions, 2nd ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1928: pp. 877-893,
and P.J.N. Baker, The Present Juridical Status of the British Dominions in
International Law, Longmans, Green & Co., 1929: pp. 67-81.

Treaties and (he Commonwealth Constitution

Page 49

in the same manner as Great Britain. 15 This admission to the League and the
International Labour Organisation involved recognition by other countries that
Australia was now a sovereign nation with the necessary 'international
personality' to enter into international relations.

4.14 At the Imperial Conference in 1923, it was recognised that the different
Governments of the Empire had the right to make treaties with foreign powers,
subject to a duty to consider any potential effect on other parts of the Empire,
and a duty to inform other Empire Governments of their intentions. Bilateral
treaties which imposed obligations on one part of the Empire only, could be
signed by a representative of that part of the Empire. Treaties negotiated at
international conferences were to be signed by representatives on behalf of all
the governments of the Empire represented at the Conference.

4.15 The Imperial Conference resolution of 1923 made the following
statement about ratification of treaties:

(a) The ratification of treaties imposing obligations on one part of the Empire
is effected at the instance of the government of that part;

(b) The ratification of treaties imposing obligations on more than one part of
the Empire is effected after consultation between the governments of those
parts of the empire concerned. It is for each government to decide whether
Parliamentary approval or legislation is required before desire for, or
concurrence in, ratification is intimated by that government.

15 M. Lewis, 'The International Status of the British Self-Governing Dominions' (1922-23)
3 British Year Book of International Law, 21 at p. 33.

16 H.V. Evatt, The Royal Prerogative, Law Book Co., 1987: p. 151; J.G. Starke, 'The
Commonwealth in International Affairs' in R. Else-Milchell (ed.), Essays on the
Australian Constitution, 2nd ed.. Law Book Co., Sydney, 1961, 343, at 349. See also
the statement made by the British Prime Minister, Mr Lloyd George, at the 1921
Conference of Prime Ministers, quoted in R. Stewart, Treaty Relations of the British
Commonwealth of Nations, MacMillan Co., New York, 1939: pp. 152-3.

17 See copy of the Conference Resolution in: J.G. Latham, Australia and the British
Commonwealth, MacMillan and Co. Ltd, London, 1929: pp 131-133.

18 J.G. Latham, Australia and the British Commonwealth , MacMillan and Co. Ltd,
London, 1929: p 133.

ANNEXURE 14

1. Copy of Full Powers documents issued to Australian
Plenipotentiaries attending the United Nations Conference in San
Francisco in 1945.

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

W H a & £ A 3 the Government of the Ccsm^iwealth of
Australia has accepted the invitation issued by the Gov* rcuaent
of the United States of America on behalf of itself and u>f the
Governments of the United Singcic©: of Great Si*itain and Northern
Ireland, the union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the
ixcTpublic of chine, to send representatives to the Confer snoe of
the United Stations Tshich Is nov being held at sen Francisco to
prepare a charter for a general international or ganiz ation for
the aaintenanoe of international peace nnfl security A H D
'« B E R B A 3 it is expedient that fit persons should be
invested with Full Power to si; ji for and oti behalf of the
Government of the Ccsamon&ealth of Australia agreesaenl; or
agreements ?/hieh : say be adopted at the 3 aid. Conference 0 'i?

TKKHSEORS THESE PRESENTS CERTIFY
■ that the RIGBT 50HQURA3LS FKASC13 SICHAEX* ;s,RDS is duly naJ^ed
constituted and appointed ea a Plenipotentiary and Representative
having Foil Ptreer and Authority to si£# for and on behalf of the
Government of the CoESaonwealth of Australia subject if necessary
to ratification any agreement or agreements which may be adopted
at the United Sat ions Conference on Interna tionsl Organisation*

IH WITHE5S THEREOF I, BOR HAS JOSE OSftylD MAKXffi .
Aeting Minister of State for External Affairs have executed the se
presents.

DATED this day of -June In the

year of Our lord one thousand nine hundred and forty—five*

J -

* 5 S H S A 3 tiHS *"**«* <* v» GcHuarnwealth of

Z1ZT * accepte " ^ ^ vitation issued *«-^

Stat6B - l-WT of itself and of the

rr* of ** **—«— «*«■«*«

* tae Salon of Soviet Socially aep^ies and the Eepubllc

* t0 repreaefttaXiWe to «- *■*««. o:r the Unite*

^ 1S ^ ^ “ ** ** U« to „ w a

" 8 Seaeral organisation. for ,*»

-intonaeoe of international peace and aeenrity A E D

5EEUAS « 18 «*•“ **** ^ .-one should he invent

“ r ^ ^ ** - ■* '*** - «• Cover naent of £

Coraaonwealth of Australia any agreeraent or

^ agreesacnt or agreensente shich aay be

adopted at the naid Conference Ho® nunoss

H* SS PRKSES ,S CB* 2 I p Y t^the
SflSOO&AB&S KSR 3 h£ 2 ? YKPtg KVAtT K r tr

.—" 1 - *11 T_• 2 .S ( 5 nlv

. . - r- r * E&LSt Ea-VA^ X ^ | K- C. ^ fy-y. ~n ^ ^

constituted and ftp^olated a« « pi + A ,

m a ^^ip^tentinry and £e P i-es«itaU7e

^ ^ 1POWer *** *° «*** ror and on beh.lf of the

Govorn-aent of the C-ww** of Australia ouhject if neceeeary
to ratification any agreed or agreement* ^ ie adQpte4

at the United nations Coherence on International Ordination.

IS SflTIBSS fVHSaBQF I, g_0 M JQflH ^

acting Slnlater of State for fcto* Affaire have executed these
pi^esezite,.

X) A T S C t&ie

<isy or June in tine

year of Our I*rd one thousand nine hundred and forty-five.

ANNEXURE 15

1. Copy of Charter of the United Nations Act 1945.

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS ACT 1945 - TABLE OF PROVISIONS

TABLE OF PROVISIONS

Section

PART 1 * PRELIMINARY

t. S lort title

2. rrterpretatlon

3. E (tension to external Territories

4. Act binds the Crown

PART 2 - APPROVAL OF CHARTER

5. Approval

PAR 1' 3 - REGULATIONS TO APPLY SECURITY COUNCIL SANCTIONS

Division 1 - Making and effect of regulations

6. Regulations may apply sanctions

7. R filiations may have extra-territorial effect

8. R igulations expire when sanctions resolution ceases to bind Australia

9. E feet of regulations on earlier Commonwealth Acts and on State and Territory laws

10. U.tcr Acts not to be interpreted as overriding this Part or the regulations

11. CI her instruments giving effect to Security Council decisions

Division l - Enforcing the regulations

12. CI fences

13. Injunctions

THE SCHEDULE

CHART!: * OF THE UNITED NATIONS

CHARI MR OF THE UNITED NATIONS ACT 1945

* l* Th» Charter of the United "Nations Act 1945 comprises Act No. 32, L945
amended is indicated in the Tables below.

Act

Tabic of Acts
Date Date of

of assent
year

Application Number and
commencement saving or

transitional provisions

Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 32, 1945 24 Sept 1945 22 Oct 1945

Charter of the United Nations Amendment Act 1993 30, 1993 9 June 1993 9 June 1993

Table of Amendments

ad->adJed or inserted am=amended rep«repealcd rs=repealed and substituted

Provisi 5n affected How affected

Title rs. No. 30, 1993

Preamt le • rep. No. 30, 1993

Heading to Part l ad. No. 30, 1993

S. 3 rs. No. 30, 1993

S. 4 ad. No. 30, 1993

Part 2 (s. 5) ad. No. 30, 1993

S. 5 ad. No. 30, 1993

Part 3 (ss. 6-13) ad. No. 30, 1993

Ss. 6- ) ad. No. 30, 1993

CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS ACT 1945 - LONG TITLE

An Act to approve the Charter of the United Nations, and to enable Australia to apply
sanctions jiving effect to certain decisions of the Security Council

PART 1 - PRELIMINARY

Short title

1. This Art may be cited as the Charter of the United Nations Act 194 5.* I*

SEE NOT liS TO FIRST ARTICLE OF THIS CHAPTER.

Interpreta ion

' 2. In tills \ct "the Charter of the United Nations" means the instrument so
entitled which was signed at the city of San Francisco on the twenty-sixth day
of June, Or.e thousand nine hundred and forty-live and which provides for the
establishment of an international organization to he known as the United
Nations.

Extension lo

3. This Act extends to eveiy external Territory.

Act binds lie Crown

4. (1) Th Act binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, of each of the States, Df the
Australian Capital Territory, of the Northern Territory and of Norfolk Island.

(2) Nothing in this Act renders the Crown in any right liable to be prosecuted for an oTence.

PART 2 - APPROVAL OF CHARTER
Approval

5. The Charter of the United Nations (a copy of which is set out in the Schedule) is
approved.

PART 3 - {REGULATIONS TO APPLY SECURITY COUNCIL SANCTIONS
Division 1 • Making and effect of regulations
Regulation, may apply sanctions

6. The Governor-General may make regulations for and in relation to giving effect to
decisions ti at:

(a) the Security Council has made under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nat.ons;
and

(b) Article 25 of the Charter requires Australia to carry out; in so tar as those decisions
require Australia to apply measures not involving the use of armed force.

Note: Art eles 39 and 41 of the Cliarter provide for the Security Council to
decide whf t measures not involving the use of armed force are to be taken to
maintain C r restore international peace and security.

Regulations may have extra-territorial effect

7. (1) Tile regulations may be expressed to have extra-territorial effect.

(2) If they are so expressed, they have effect accordingly, and so does Division 2 of this Part.

Regulations expire when sanctions resolution ceases to bind Australia

8. (1) In so far as the regulations provide for or in relation to giving effect to a particular
decision of the Security Council:

(a) they roase to have effect when Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations ceu »es to
require Ai stralia to carry out that decision; and

(b) they ita not revive, even if Australia again becomes required to carry out the decision,

(2) Howo/er, to avoid doubt, nothing in this section prevents the repeal of regulations, or the

making of legulations that arc the same in substance as regulations that have ceased to save
effect bees use of this section.

Effect of ngulations on earlier Commonwealth Acts arid oh State and Territory laws

9. The regulations have effect despite:

(a) an Act enacted before the commencement of this section; or

(b) an instrument made under such an Act (including such ail instrument made at or after that
commencement); or

(c) a law of a State or Territory; or

(d) an instalment made under such a law; or

(e) any p ovision of the Corporations Act 1989 or of the Corporations Law, Corporations
RegulatioiASC Law, or ASC Regulations, of the Australian Capital Territory*^

(0 an ins mment made under such a provision.

Later Acts not to be interpreted as overriding this Part or the regulations

10. (1) Ac Act enacted at or after the commencement of this section is not to be interpreted
as:

(a) amending or repealing, or otherwise altering the effect or operation of, a provision of this
Part or of lie regulations; or

(b) authorising the making of an instrument amending or repealing, or otherwise altering the
effect or o :eration of, a provision of this Part or of the regulations.

(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the interpretation of an Act so far as that Act provides
expressly for that Act, or for an instrument made under that Act, to have effect despite this
Act, despite the regulations, or despite a specified provision of this Act or of the regula :ions.

Other iustiumcnts giving effect to Security Council decisions

11. To a\ oid doubt, the validity or operation of an instrument made under another Ac ’ is not
affected merely because the instalment was made in connection with giving effect to a decision
of the Security Council.

DIVISION l - Enforcing the regulations
Offences

12. (1) Th: regulations may prescribe penalties of not more than St) penalty units for offences
against the regulations.

(2) The limitation on penalties in subsection (l) does not prevent the regulations from
requiring someone to make a statutory declaration.

Injunctions

13. (1) If i person has engaged, is engaging, or proposes to engage, in conduct involving a
contravention of the regulations, a superior court may by order grant an injunction restraining
the person f om engaging in conduct specified in the order.

(2) An inj miction may only be granted on application by the Attorney-General.

(3) On an application, the court may, if it thinks it appropriate, grant an injunction by consent
of all partie i to the proceedings, whether or not the court is satisfied that subsection (1)
applies.

(4) A supudor court may, if it thinks it desirable, grant an interim injunction pending its
determination of an application.

(5) A cou ■: is not to require the Attorney-General or anyone else, as a condition of granting
an interim ir junction, to give an undertaking as to damages.

(6) A cou :: may discharge or vary an injunction it has granted.

(7) The power to grant or vary an injunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct

may be exercised: .

(a) wheth jr or not it appears to the court that the person intends to engage again, or to
continue tc engage, in such conduct; and

(b) wheth j r or not the person has previously engaged in such conduct.

(8) [n this lection:

"superior court 11 means the Federal Court of Australia or the Supreme Court of a State or
Territory.

THU SCHEDULE

CHARTSl OF THE UNITED NATIONS
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS

DETERM. NED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice i\ our
lifetime ha; brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human
rights, in tl 1 5 dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women
and of nati.:n$ largo and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for
the obligat ons arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained,
and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR rHESE ENDS

to practice loierance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, ard to
unite our s l ength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the
acceptance af principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used,
save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the
economic i nd social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE REj OLVFD TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of
San Franci:i;o, who have exhibited their dill powers found to be in good and due form, have
agreed to t :e present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international
organization to be known as the United Nations.

ANNEXURE 16

1. Copy of letter from Office of Attorney - General.

2. Copy of letter from Australian Government Solicitor

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colon

20/97087084

Office of
Attorney-General

2 7 OCT tSS?

Mr Wolter Joosse
6 Apsley Place
SEAFORD VIC 3198

Dear Mr Joosse

^ ?'Y are - yOUr letter was forwarded to the Official AS you * ould

and then to the office of the Attom^v i tu ^ ec F ctax y to the Governor-General

Attorney-General ^behalf 6 Att 0 me y- General - 1 been asked to reply on the

her representative Under section 61 the t0 appom ^ ^ Governor-General as

Ret>ort*of r ° le ’ 1)16 Consdt " ti ° nal Commission observed in its Final

Report of 1988 that the disappearance of the British empire has meant that the Queen

is now sovereign of a number of separate countries such as the United Kingdom
Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Commission pointed out that, as S Queen of
th « Queen holds an entirely distinct and different position from that which
she holds as Queen of the United Kingdom (or any other country) You might be

h^?rT d r ,‘h n S te ^ Commission’s acknowledgment of a statement by a former Chief
Jusuce of the High Court in Pocht v Macphee (1982) 151 CLR 101, 109 The former
Chief Justice stated that [t]he allegiance which Australians owe to Her Majesty is
owed not as British subjects but as subjects of the Queen of Australia’. J V

Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 • Telephone (02) 6277 7300 • Fax (02) 6273 4102

You have in pnifictjlai about llic practice of issuing letters patent in iclalion to

the office of ‘Governor'. I ain advised that letters patent ‘constituting' the office of
Governor-General of Australia were issued on 29 October 1900 under the great seal of
the United Kingdom by Queen Victoria as Queen of the l Initcd Kingdom.

Amendments of the letters piilent Issued in 1900, made on >1 December 1958, weic
approved by Queen Elizabeth II on the advice of the Australian government. On 24
August 1984 the letters patent issued in 1900 were revoked and new letters patent
were issued by Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Australia under the great seal of
Australia, once again on the advice of the Australian government. Other letters patent
since revoked, were issued in 1954 and 1973.

The Constitutional Commission has noted that the letters patent of 29 October 1900
‘constituting’ the office of Governor-General duplicated a number of the provisions in
the Constitution conferring powers on the Governor-General, and also granted some
other powers which are now clearly among the powers embraced by section 61 of the
Constitution. The Commission has observed that the letters patent of 21 August 1984
eliminated these redundant clauses and at the same time revoked the royal instructions
to the Governor-General dated 29 October 1900.

I am advised that the state constitutions also reflect the central role of the Crown as
part of the parliament and executive government of each state and that the office and
powers of a state Governor are established or continued by either letters patent issued
by the monarch or by state constitutional legislation. I am also advised that, under
section 7 of the Australia Act 1986 , the state Governors are appointed by the Queen on
the advice of state Premiers.

However, arrangements relating to the appointment of state Governors may vary
between states and I am not in a position to provide further information about those
arrangements.

You have also asked about the Queen’s role in the appointment of judges and of
‘Queen’s Counsel’. At present, all federal judges are appointed by the Governor-
General under subsection 72(i) of the Constitution. Queen’s counsel for the
Commonwealth have been appointed with the approval of the Governor-General on
the recommendation of the Attorney-General by letters patent signed by the Governor-
General and counter-signed by the Attorney-General. I am advised that the Governor-
General’s power to make such appointments derives from section 61 of the
Constitution.

Once again, I am unable to provide information about particular state arrangements.

I trust this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely

2

*

VBWW * 1

Office of

AUoiney-Oeneral

20/97087084

Mr Wolter Joosse
6 Apsley Place
SEAFORD VIC 3198

Dear Mr Joosse

I refer to your letter to Mr Funder of this office dated 30 October 1997. Mr Funder
wrote to you on 27 October 1997 concerning the constitutional bases of the roles of
the Queen and her vice regal representatives in Australian government. However, you
still have some concerns about the validity of the Commonwealth Constitution. Mr
Funder has asked me to reply to your letter on his behalf.

Your concern continues to stem from the fact that Australia’s fundamental law - die
Commonwealth Constitution - was originally enacted as part of an Act of the United
Kingdom Parliament. As I understand it, you see die continued observance of the
Constitution, and die laws made under it, as inconsistent with Australia’s status as an
independent nation. You ask by what ‘authority’ the Constitution continues to operate
in Australia.

I should begin by pointing out that it was necessary to enact the Constitution as part of
an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament because, to that point, Australia had been a
collection of self-governing British colonies. Ultimate legal authority over those
colonies rested with Britain. Nevertheless, the Constitution was approved by the
electors in die Australian colonies before it commenced in 1901.

The new entity created by the Constitution - the Commonwealth of Australia - retained
its colonial status for some time after federation. It was accepted that, as a colony (or
‘Dominion’), Australia remained subject to some Imperial statutes. However,

Australia developed an independent status in international affairs over the course of
the century. I am advised that Australia’s participation at the Peace Conference
following the First World War, and at the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930,
marked important steps along the path to attaining a separate international personality.

I am advised that the Statute of Westminster, 1931 (UK) embodied many of the
recommendations of the Imperial Conferences regarding the progress of the
Dominions toward full independence. It included provisions affirming the power of
the Dominion parliaments to make laws having extra-territorial effect; and providing
that no law of the United Kingdom Parliament should extend to a Dominion otherwise
that at the request and consent of the Dominion. The relevant provisions of the
Imperial Act were adopted in Australia under a Commonwealth (ie, Australian) Act,
the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, having retrospective effect from 1939.
At least since the passage of the Australia Acts in Australia and the United Kingdom
(severing a number of remaining formal links between Australia and the United

Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 • Telephone (02) 6277 7300 • Fa* (02) 6273 4102

Kingdom), the United Kingdom Parliament has had no authority at all in relation to
Australian affairs.

However the fact remains that our system of national government is given its basic
structure by the Constitution. That structure has continued largely unchanged since
federation. Those changes which have been made have been made by the Australian
people at referendum in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution. I am advised
that the character of the Constitution as Australia’s fundamental law can now be seen
to derive from its acceptance by the Australian people, rather than the fact that the
Constitution was originally enacted by the United Kingdom Parliament.

The Australian people may, of course, choose to make further changes to the
Constitution. One possibility is a republican form of government for the
Commonwealth. As you are aware, that possibility will be discussed by delegates at
the Consututional Convention in Canberra in February.

As to the authority’ for these comments, I am advised that they simply reflect basic
and generally accepted constitutional and legal principles. The Attorney-General’s
Department has indicated that they may be verified in any reasonably comprehensive
text book dealing with Australian constitutional law.

I hope you find these comments helpful.
Yours sincerely

Adele Byrne
Adviser

2

Office of

Attorney-General

20/97071622

I 6 JAN 1998

Mr Peter Batten
PO Box 1333
RENMARK SA 5341

Dear Mr Batten

I refer to your letters to the Attorney-General dated 7 November 1997,12 December
1997 and 18 December 1997 concerning Australia’s status as an independent nation.
The Attorney-General has asked me to respond to your letters on his behalf.

I refer also to my letter to you on this matter dated 21 October 1997. I am sorry that
you did not find that response to be satisfactory. ^ to')

Your concern continues to stem from the fact that Australia’s fundamental law - the
Commonwealth Constitution - was originally enacted as part of an Act of the United
Kingdom Parliament. As I understand it, you see the continued observance of the
Constitution, and the laws made under it, as inconsistent with Australia’s status as an
independent nation. You have also referred to the operation of the Statute of
Westminster , 1931 (UK) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK).

You say that Australia ‘became an independent sovereign nation on the 10th January
1920 and ask by what ‘authority’ the laws just mentioned continue to have ‘validity’
in Australia.

As I pointed out in my last letter, it was necessary to enact the Constitution as part of
an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament because, to that point, Australia had been a
collection of self-governing British colonies. Ultimate legal authority over those
colonies rested with Britain. Nevertheless, the Constitution was approved by the
electors in the Australian colonies before it commenced in 1901.

The new entity created by the Constitution - the Commonwealth of Australia - retained
its colonial status for some time after federation. It was accepted that, as a colony (or
‘Dominion’), Australia remained subject to some Imperial statutes. However,
Australia developed an independent status in international affairs over the course of
this century. I am advised that Australia’s participation at the Peace Conference
following the First World War, and at the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930,
marked important steps along the path to attaining a separate international personality.

So far as the Statute of Westminster, 1931 (UK) is concerned, I am advised that it
embodied many of the recommendations of the Imperial Conferences regarding the
progress of the Dominions toward full independence. It included provisions affirming
the power of Dominion parliaments to make laws having extra-territorial effect; and

Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 • Telephone (02) 6277 7300 • Fax (02) 6273 4102

providing that no law of the United Kingdom Parliament should extend to a Dominion
otherwise than at the request and consent of the Dominion. The relevant provisions of
the Imperial Act were adopted in Australia under a Commonwealth (ie, Australian)
Act, the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 , having retrospective effect from
1939. At least since the passage of the Australia Acts in Australia and the United
Kingdom, the United Kingdom Parliament has had no authority at all in relation to
Australian affairs.

However, the fact remains that our system of national government is given its basic
structure by the Constitution. That structure has continued largely unchanged since
federation. Those changes which have been made have been made by the Australian
people at referendum in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution. As I
indicated in my earlier letter, the character of the Constitution as Australia’s
fundamental law can now be seen to derive from its acceptance by the Australian
people, rather than the fact that the Constitution was originally enacted by the United
Kingdom Parliament

The Australian people may, of course, choose to make further changes to the
Constitution. One possibility is a republican form of government for the
Commonwealth. As you are aware, that possibility will be discussed by delegates at
the Constitutional Convention in Canberra in February.

As to the ‘authority* for these comments, I am advised that they simply reflect basic
and generally accepted constitutional and legal principles. The Attorney-General’s
Department has indicated that they may be verified in any reasonably comprehensive
text book dealing with Australian constitutional law.

I have enclosed a copy of an essay written by Professor Zines (and included in a
collection of essays entitled Commentaries on the Australian Constitution) that may be
of interest The essay was published in 1977 and therefore does not deal with the
effect of the Australia Acts. Nevertheless, it includes relevant discussion (particularly
sections 5 and 6) about the growth of Australian nationhood in the earlier part of this
century.

I hope you find these comments helpful.

Yours sincerely

Adele Byrne
Adviser

2

9710662 (/Mi 75897/176122
22Januar/ 1998

Australian
Government
Solicitor

Mr Paul A Johnson
Lot 2 Princes .Highway

WOLUMLA NSW 2550

Dear Mr Johnson

SOURCE S OF AUSTRALIAN LAW

Thank you for your letter to die Attorney-General dated 11 November 1997 re.-ardintt the
bases ot Ajstrahan law. Your letter to the Governor-General on the same matter has also

t0 ' h ?, offic \°. f Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has asked me
to respond to your letters on his behalf.

In your le.iers you have identified a number of significant steps on Australia’s path towards
national independence. Your concern relates to the formal basis of Australian law since
Austra ha Hiamed that independence. You have noted that the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK) - which contains the Commonwealth Constitution - is an Act of
the British parliament. You have also noted that, at least since the passage of the Australia
Acts in l. ,<5, the British parliament can no longer legislate for Australia. On that basis, you
have aske; what documents) provide for the basis of law in Australia’

It has bcc 1 said that when the first fleet arrived at Sydney Cove in January 1788 and formed
the new colony of New South Wales it brought the English system of law with it. Certainly,
a great cle it of British common law and .statute law was ‘received’ by the colonies at the
time of settlement. That Jaw has been changed and developed in many respects by
ustraliai. courts and legislatures. Those changes began well before the Commonwealth
Constitution commenced and the Commonwealth of Australia was created in 1901. There
are now various State Acts (eg, the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW)) dealing with
the application of received laws in the States.

As you w 'uld be aware, it was necessary to enact the Constitution as part of a British Act of
parliament because, before 1900, Australia was a collection of self-governing British
colonics. Ultimate power over those colonies rested with the British parliament.
Neverthekss, the federation’ movement began in the colonics and the terms of the
Constitution had been approved by the people of the colonics by the time it came into effect.

Since A in tralia has attained its independent status, the character of the Constitution as
Australia’s fundamental law can be seen as resting predominantly on the Australian
people’s decision to approve and he bound by its terms, and not on the status of the
Constitution as an Act of the British parliament. What has been described as ‘the
sovereignty ot the Australian people’ is recognised by section 128 of the Constitution,
which pre vides that any change to the Constitution must be approved by the people of
Australia.

Office of General Counsel

Kob«rc Cirri- Offices, Nation.,I Grew.*, DiUon ACT 2600 • TVI (02) 6210 5555 • OX 5678 « fa* (02) 6250 5015
OmuEs IN CANBERRA, SYDNEY, MELBOURNE, BRISBANE, PERTH. ADELAIDE. HOUArfi. OaRWIN, TOWN5.V1I.U:

izr<:

t :6 d

&6/S9/S8 *y< -fry

fiq |uas

[ ho P« tlwsc comments are of assistance.
Yours iinccrcly

///.

/iC

Janies ] ; au!kner

A/g Senior General Counsel

22 January 1998
Sources of Australian law

Z : B «I

iZ: J C 66/S0/S0 frW< -W

: fiq -juas xwj

Attorney

GENERAL'S

Department

Office of Legal Services Coordination

190349/191681

24 June 1999

Ms/Mr J P Anderson
Suite 346

13 i Old Cleveland Road
Capalaba 4157

Dear Ms/Mr Anderson

I refer to your letter dated 19 April 1999 addressed to the Governor General. As you are

29 AnrimOQ eIlCr L™ fr ° m lhe Y- tinfi 0fficial Sccrelar y <o the Governor-General on
29 Apnl 1999, your letter was passed in May to the Attorney-General for reply direct The

Attorney has asked me to reply on his behalf. y

RnrtllnrkMP x? h ? r , vo ‘ er 8 ram in precisely the same terms addressed to the lion. Philip
L f MP - !v ' lnisler fo , r Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, was also passed to the

Attorney for reply as tl related to his portfolio responsibilities. Please regard this letter as a
reply also to your votergram to Mr Ruddock. iu.se rega. a tins tetter as a

In your letters to the Governor-General and Mr Ruddock you express the view that

ssas ssssssst. d ° h " e ““ ,y “ ™>»“ “p»"

LmW,t l !^i 0 '.'-° ri o e Commonwealth of Australia is Australia’s fundamental law. It is
contained m see ion 9 of the Commonwealth or Australia Constitution Act which was
cnacicd by lhe United Kingdom Parliament.

The Australia ^J986 of the Commonwealth, and the Australia Act 1986 of the United
Kingdom, brought the constitutional arrangements governing the Commonwealth and the

nation [hc °^ AustraIia ^ a sovereign, independent and federal

nahon. Section 1 of the Australia Act precludes any Act of the United Kingdom Parliament
passed after the commencement of the Australia Act from extending t.o Australia.

I mention for your information that in a case in late 1998, Joosse v Australian Securities and
Investment Commission [1998] HCA 77, the High Court considered aLd reacted
arguments to the effect that some kind of break in Australia’s sovereignly occurred over the
course of he twentietht century, with the results that the Constitution Seased lo be
fundamental law and that legislation passed by Australian legislatures was invalid.

Robert Garran Offices, Njlion.il Circuit, Gartun ACT JhO(> .

Telephone (02) 62 50 6GG6 • Fjx (02) 6250 5900

u CJ ty CJ o

P , •

In its decision on 23 June 1999 in the W v u;i! cu .

Court also upheld the status of Australia as - S a UlU } lll & { '™> the High

binding Constitution. anc ^ lr] dependent nation, having t

Yours sincerely

Sandra Power

A/g Assistant Secretary'

Constitutional Policy Unit

14 June 1999

Dear Ms/Mr Anderson
2

VV..W fJVA V* I * I / tOilig

»UHU£ PC5T OFFICE

Q} oo

Office of

Attorney-General

-6 JUL1999

Mr R O McCulloch
C/ • M & A Camilleri
M/S 895 Sugar Sbfed Road
MA.CKAY QUI4.70 ...

Dear Mr McCulloch •

I refer to your letter dated 19 May 1999 to the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl
Williams AM QC MP, enclosing a document with the heading ‘Question to the
Federal Parliament', regarding the validity of Australian law. The Attorney-General
has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.

The paper enclosed with your letter asserts that Australia became an independent -

nation when it became a member of the League of Nations and that this invalidated
legislation in force in Australia, including the Commonwealth Constitution. On the
assumption this assertion is correct, you then ask what documents form the basis of
law in Australia after that event

The view outlined in the document is misconceived. The Constitution remains the
fundamental law of Australia, and laws made in accordance with it are valid. The
constitution is contained in section 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution
Act, which was enacted by the United Kingdom Parliament

The Australia Act 1986 of the Commonwealth, and the Australia Act 1986 of the
United Kingdom, brought the constitutional arrangements governing the
Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of Australia as a
sovereign, independent .and federal nation. The United Kingdom Parliament enacted
its Australia Act at the request, and with the consent, of the Commonwealth
Parliament and the concurrence of all State Parliaments. Section 1 of both Acts
acknowledge the complete legislative independence of the Commonwealth and the
States and terminate the power of the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for any
part of Australia.

Australia's development into an independent nation did not terminate existing laws in
force in Australia, nor did it render subsequent laws invalid. This is demonstrated by
the High Court’s recent decision in Joosse v Australia Securities and Investments ✓
Commission [19981HCA 77. In this case, the High Court considered, and rejected,
arguments to the effect that some kind of break in Australia’s sovereignty occurred
over the course of this century, with the results that the Constitution ceased to be
fundamental law and that legislation passed by Australian legislatures was invalid.
This case is reported in volume 159 of the Australian Law Reports , p.260 ff. More
recently still, in-Aie v Bill [1999] HCA 30 a decision given by the High Court on
23 June 1999, the High Court described the development of Australia as an
independent and sovereign nation under the Constitution and the Crown.

An assent copy of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (a copy signed by
Queen Victoria) is kept in Parliament House, Canberra, and is generally on public

Puliimmt Hou*e. Canberra ACT 2600 • Telephone (02) 6277 7300 • Fax (02) 6273 4102

10 39tfd

0

0E -82

display there,. Copies of the Constitution arc available at many public libraries and
bookstore*.

1 hope this information is of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely ‘ : ' , s

Janet Power
Adviser

onj. 3 * 4 £au//* ce.

f//'c h if*u as

J ifttak tjat/ u,/// if

/a," Co* si Jen/iiq ge»J'*iq a.

cofiu hack jto'' tke iJo* Oa/'^l

AMS 7^p fOc /* St>t7 ct //y.

JrL /e L,,^ Opinions

/fa'fJU.

A.

Z0 30Vd

0

0E -60 666I/Z.0/E

ANNEXURE 17

1. Copy of UN Resolution 2131 of 1965.

2. Copy of UN Resolution 2625 of 1970.

AUSTRALIA

The concealed colony

YEARBOOK

OF THE

UNITED

NATIONS

1965

OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK

94

POLITICAL AND SECURITY QUESTIONS

/C -' /1 " 1r - P -^ ;,f V1|'| amendmt
leclaration, A/C.l/L.J+J/K.ev.1.

A/^[/L.353 and Add.l. Uniced Arab Republic
lited Republic of Tanzania: draft dcclorctio
A/C. \/L.353/Rev. 1. Iraq, Uaitcd Arab Republic
LniVd Republic of Tanzania: revised ini:
dara\on.

A/C.l/»353/Rev.2. Algeria, Burma, Iraq. J:Jan,
Kenya\ Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, MauritaaiajNi-

He of T^zaoia, Yugoslavia: revise
tion.

A/C.I/L.353te.ev.3 and Add.l. Algeria, Bu¬
rundi, Irac\ Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Li:
Libya, Mala*, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria. E
Syria, Togo,\ Uganda, United Arab R:
United RepubV: of Tanzania, Yemen, Yac
Zambia: revises draft declaration.

A/C.I/L.353/Rev.\and Add.l. Algeria, BurA, Bu¬
rundi, Carne^onJCvDruj^^yJjj^jag^orcp. Ken¬
ya, KqlWBfT^WaTpnTEibya^Malawij^RsftCauri-
tania, Nigeria, Rwa\da, Saudi .Arabia, SutiJs. Syria,
Togo, Uganda, UniVd Arab Republic, Lifted Re¬
public of Tanzania, VeraeB, Yugoslavia/Zambia:
revised draft dcdarat\n.

A/C.1/L.354. India: arYndments to draft

resolution, A/C.l/L.349«R.ev.I.

A/C.1/L.364 and Add.l. Afghanistan, /Uzeria, Ar¬
gentina, Bolivia, Brazil, B
Ci vile, Colombia,

ReptJWl^Jl Lougo, Costa
Ecuador, El Salvador, E
Guatemala, Haiti, Hond
Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kenv
Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauric

a, Burur/i, Cameroon,
pmocratic
ica, Cyprus, Dihamey,
pia, A abort. Guinea,
ItAia, Iran. Iraq,
uwait, Lebanon,
a, Meets, Nica¬

ragua, Niger, Nigeria, Panama Paraguay Peru,

*lTim5aa and Tobago, Tuni/a,\ugandaT^United
.Arab Republic, United Repujpic cl TanzarJa, Uru¬
guay, Venezuela, Yemen, YurosIaviV Zambia: draft
declaration, approved by Fust CtYimit::? on 20
December 1965, meeting Ft22, by \ll-oC vote of
100 to 0, with 5 abstenti«j, as folio
In favour: Afghanistan. Algeria, ArgeAiai. Austria,
Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgay, Burma, BuiVr.cL Byelo¬
russian SSR, Camerc^i, Canada, CenYal .African
'Republic, Ceylon, ( yilc, Chin a, CoIorr.Yi, Congo

Congo,

Costa Rica, Cubag Cyprus, Czechoslovak. Daho¬
mey, D e nm ark .^Domi mean Republic, EcAdor, El
Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabc.t.mjhana,
Greece, GuaiArtala, Guinea, Haiti, HondurA Hun¬
gary, Icelacp, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland. Msrael,
Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, riwait,
Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg. Mada¬
gascar,/Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania
jeo, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, N

Paraguay,

Philippines, Poland, Rocnarna]^TWWi^^ Saudi
Arjoia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, a31 In, Su-
d#t, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and
obago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SSR,

A/6220. Report of First Committee.
resolution 2131 (x-t), as proposed by First Com¬
mittee, A/6220, adopted by Assembly on 21 De¬
cember 1965, meeting 1408, by roll-call vote of 109
to 0, with l abstention, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, .Ariadna, Aus¬
tralia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brarii, Bulgaria,
Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SSR. Cameroon, Can¬
ada, Central African Rcpubtic, Ceylon, Chad, Chile,
China, Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville! Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus,
Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark. Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland,
France, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea,
Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland,
Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,
Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Lux¬
embourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maidive
Islands, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Mo¬
rocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua,
Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay,
Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia,
Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo,
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda,
Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United .Arab Republic,
United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Upper
Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia,
Zambia.

Against: None.

Abstaining: United Kingdom.

“The General Assembly,

“Deeply concerned at the gravity of the international
situation and the increasing threat to universal peace
due to armed intervention and other direct or indirect
forms of interference threatening the sovereign per¬
sonality and the political independence of States,
“Considering that the United Nations, in accordance
with their aim to eliminate war, threats :o the peace
and acts of aggression, created an Organization, based
on the sovereign equality of States, whose friendly
relations would be based on respect for the principle
of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and
on the obligation of its Members to refrua from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of any Scam.

“Recognizing that, Ln fulfilment of me principle of
self-determination, the General Assembly, in the De¬
claration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples contained in resolution 1514
(XV) of 14 December I960, stated in conviction
that all peoples have an inalienable rtght to complete
freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the
integrity of their national territory, and that, by virtue
of that right, they freely determine heir political

95

IMPROVING RELATIONS BETWEEN EUROPEAN 5TATES

status and freely pursue tirr economic, social and
cultural development,

"Recalling that in the Catvenal Declaration of
Human Righa the General .Uiimbly proclaimed that
recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal
and inalienable rights of aecbers of the human
family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace
in the world, without dbtizczca of any kind,

"Reaffirming the principle of ooa-intervencion, pro¬
claimed in the charters of -J:= Organization of Ameri¬
can States, the League of Arab States and the Organ¬
ization of African Unity izi adirrr.ed at the confer¬
ences held ax Montevideo. 3-jeact Aires, Chapultepcc
and Bogota, as well as ir. the decisions of the AsLaa-
African Conference ac Baziuzj, he First Conference
of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned
Countries at Belgrade, in he Programme for Peace
and International Co-operaz:a adopted ac the end of
the Second Conference of Heidi of State or Govern¬
ment of Non-.Aligned Countries ac Cairo, and in the
declaration oa subversion zdapttd at Accra by the
Heads of Stare and Government of the .African States,
"Recognising that full observance of the principle of
the non-intervention of States in the internal and
external affairs of other States is essential to the
fulfilment of hie purposes mi principles of the United
Nations,

"Considering that armed intervention is synonymous
with aggression and, as ram, is contrary to the basic
principles on which peaceful international co-operation
between States should be built,

"Considering further that direct intervention, sub¬
version and all forms of indirect intervention are
contrary to these principles ltd, consequently, consti¬
tute a violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
"Mindful that violarica of the principle of non¬
intervention poses a threat to the independence, free¬
dom and normal political, ecmorric, social and cul¬
tural development of countries, particularly those
which have freed themselves item colonialism, and can
pose a serious threat to hie maintenance of peace,

"Fully dinar' of the imperative need to create ap¬
propriate conditions which would enable all States, and
in particular the developing countries, to choose with¬
out duress or coercion their own political, economic
and social insritutionj,

"In the light of the foregoing considerations.

solemnly declares:

“l. No State has the right to intervene, directly or
indirectly, for any reism whatever, in the internal or
external affairs o: my ocher State. Consequently,
armed intervention mi ill ocher forms of interference
or artempeed chreuu against the personality of the
State or against in rcitical, economic and cultural
elements, arc conc emzud

“2. No Stats use or encourage the use of
economic, political m my other type of measures to
coerce another St;:; m order to obtain from it the
subordination of me msuise of its sovereign rights or
to secure from it ui-.-mtages of any kind. Also, no
State shall organic;, imst, foment, finance, incite or
tolerate subversive. ads: or armed activities directed
towards the violent " trirow of the regime of another
State, or interfere in uvi1 strife in another State.

“3. The use of :::ae to deprive peoples of their
nacicnai identity c;i~rums a violation of their inalien¬
able rights and of h; principle of non-intervention.

"4. The scrict zzarrmcc of these obligations is an
essential condition s ;=snre that nations live together
in peace with one srrmer, since the practice of any
form of intervenes only violates the spirit and
letter of the Char.— :: the United Nations but also
leads to the crearitz situations which threaten in¬
ternational peace sz; s—urity.

"5. Every State its m inalienable right to choose
its political, ecoctma social and cultural systems,
without interference Iz my form by another State.

“6. All States shall r»pect the right of seLf-deter-
minarion and indepezfence of peoples and nations, to
be freely exercised ---eieet any foreign pressure, and
with absolute respect far human rights and funda¬
mental freedoms. Cerjereencly, all States shall con¬
tribute to the cornel;:; domination of racial dberimi-
narioa and colonialism En all its forms and mani¬
festations.

"7. For the pur;:se of the present Declaration,
the term ‘State’ c—era both individual States and
groups of States.

“8. Nothing in tab Declaration shall be construed
as affecting in any f-trrr the relevant provisions of
the Charter of the Urieed Nations relating to the
maintenance of inttemmcal peace and security, in
particular those coznized in Chapters VI, VII and
VIII.'’

CHAPTER VII

REGIONAL ACTION TO IMPROVE RELATIONS BETWEEN
EUROPEAN STATES WITH DIFFERENT SOCIAL
AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS

The question of “Actions on the regional level
with a view to improving good neighbourly
relations among European States having dif¬
ferent social and polidcal systems" was first

placed on the agenda of the General Assembly
in 1963 at its eighteenth session. This was
done at the request of Romania.

On that occasicn. the Assembly decided, in

YEARBOOK

OF THE

UNITED

NATIONS

Volume 24

1970

OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK

FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION
ANNEX

DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OP INTERNATIONAL
Law concerning Friendly Relations and
C a-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE
wTTg the Charter op the U.s'rno Nations

PREAMBLE

Tr.i General Assembly,

Reaffirming in the terms of die Charter of die
United Nations that the maintenance of international
pesce and security and the development of friend!*
relations and co-operation between nations arc among
;he fundamental purposes of the United Nations,
Resitting that the peoples of the United Nations
are determined to practise tolerance and live together
■" ?sace with one another as good neighbours,

Bearing m mind the importance of maintaining and
strengthening international peace fotmded upon free¬
dom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental
human rights and of developing friendly relations
among nations irrespective of their political, ecoaomic
and social systems or the levels of their development.

Baring in mind also the paramount importance of
the Charter of the United Nations in the promotion
of the rule of law among nations,

Considering that the faithful observance of the
principles of international law concerning friendly
relations and co-operation among States and the ful¬
filment in good faith of the obligations assumed by
States, in accordance with the Charter, is of the
greatest importance for the maintenance of inttraa-
ttona] peace and security and for the implementation
of die other purposes of the United Nations,

Soling that the great political, economic and social
changes and scientific progress which have taken
place in the world since the adoption of the Charter
give increased importance to these principles and to
the need for their more effective application in the
conduct of States wherever carried on,

Recalling the established principle that outer $?ace :
including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not
subject to national appropriation by claim of sov¬
ereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by an¬
other means, and mindful of the fact that considera¬
tion is being given in the United Nations to the ques¬
tion of establishing other appropriate provisions sim¬
ilarly inspired,

Convinced that the strict observance by States of the
obligation not to intervene in the affairs of any other
State is an essential condition to ensure chat nations
live together in peace with one another, since the
practice of any form of intervention not only violates
the spirit and letter of the Charter, but also leads to
the creation of situations which threaten international
peace and security.

Recalling the duty of States to refrain in their in¬
ternational relations from military, political, economic
or any other form of coercion aimed against the
political independence or territorial integrity of any
State,

AMONG STATES 789

Considering it essential that all States shall refrain
.a thetr international relations from the threat or use
>1 torce against the territorial integrity or political
^dependence of any State, or in any other manner In¬
consistent with the purposes of the United Nariom,
Considering it equally essential chat all States
shall settle their international disputes by oeaceful
means in accordance with the Charter,

Reaffirming, in accordance with the Cianer, the
basic importance of sovereign equality and stressing
-_hat the purposes of the United Nations can be imple¬
mented only if States enj’oy sovereign equality and
comply fully with the requirements of this principle
m their international relations.

Convinced that the subjection of peoples :a alien
subjugation, domination and exploitation ctnsatutes
a major obstacle to the promotion of international
price and security,

Convinced that the principle of equal rirha and
•elf-determination of peoples constitutes a significant
contribution to contemporary international '.aw, and
mat its effective application is of paramount impor¬
tance for the promotion of friendly relations among
States, based on respect for the principle of sovereign
equality.

Convinced in consequence that any a::rmp: aimed
at the partial or total disruption of the catccnai unity
md territorial integrity of a State or country or at its
political independence is incompatible with me pur¬
poses and principles of the Charter,

Considering the provisions of the Charter as a whole
isd taking into account the role of relevant resolu¬
tions adopted by the competent organs of tie United
Nations relating to the content of the principles.
Considering that the progressive development and
codification of the following principles:

(a) The principle that States shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political indepen¬
dence of any State, or in any other manner inconsist¬
ent with the purposes of the United Naricnj,

\b) The principle that States shall settle their
international disputes by peaceful means in such a
manner that international peace and security and
justice are not endangered,

(r) The duty not to intervene in marten within
the domestic jurisdiction of any State, ia accordance
with the Charter,

(d) The duty of States to co-operate with one an¬
other in accordance with the Charter,

(e) The principle of equal rights and self-deter¬
mination of peoples,

f/) The principle of sovereign equality of States,

(g) The principle that States shall fulfil in good
faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance
with the Charter,

so as to secure their more effective application within
tie international community, would promote the real¬
ization of the purposes of the United Nations,

Having considered the principles of international
law relating to friendly relations and co-operation
among States,

790

LECAL QUESTION'S

1. Solemnly pr:;lsms the following principle*:

Tha prinr.pit that Statu shall refrain
tn their mtr~:tt:onal relations from the
threat or -at a* -jrce against the territorial
integrity or ptiizcal independence of any
State, or :n --y ;:her manner inconsistent
with the of the United Nations

. ^ ver 7 State has tie duty to refrain in its interna¬
tional relation if—— th; threat or use of force againsc
the territorial :=::^irr or political independence of
any State, or in onr tther manner inconsistent with
the purposes of Veiled Nations. Such a threat or
use of force cor.irT-.ns 1 violation of international law
and the Charter :: h: United Nations and shall never
be employed as a ~:ins of settling international issues.

A war of aggriititi constitutes a crime against the
peace, for which 'a::: is responsibility under interna¬
tional law.

la accordance with the purposes and principles of
the United Nattcns. States have the duty to refrain
from propaganda ::r ••van of aggression.

Every State has tie duty to refrain from the threat
or use of force to vtclate the existing international
boundaries of anc-titr Stite or as a means of solving
international disputes, including territorial disputes
and problems cozztrzlzg frontiers of States.

Every State Uir--.se has the duty to refrain from
the threat or use :: :::ce to violate international lines
of demarcation, sc:h is armistice lines, established by
or pursuant to an international agreement to which
tt is a party or Watch i; h otherwise bound to respect.
Nothing in the ferreriag shall be construed as preju¬
dicing the postures the parties concerned with
regard to the stares md effects of such lines under
their special regimes :r as affecting their temporary
character.

. States have a durv ta refrain from acts of reprisal
involving the use :: ::rce.

Every State has ice duty to refrain from any forci¬
ble action which deprives peoples referred to in the
elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-
determination of taur right to self-determination and
freedom and independence.

Every State has me duty to refrain from organizing
or encouraging the t.-giaization of irregular forces or
armed bands, including mercenaries, for incursion
into the territory c: ieether State.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing,
instigating, assisting participating in acts of civil
strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing
in organized actr.-.nes within its territory directed
towards the com m is s i ra of such acts, when the acts
referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat
or use of force.

The territory of a State shall not be the object of
military occupation resulting from the use of force in
contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The
territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisi¬
tion by another St 2 Cj resulting from the threat or use
of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the
threat or use of fme jh.aH be recognized as legal.

Nothing .3 use foregoing shall be construed as affect¬
ing:

(a) Pmvjisjis of the Charter or any international
agreement prior to the Charter regime and valid un¬
der intrntadcrai law; or

(b) The powers of the Security Council under the
Charter.

All Stain shall pursue in good faith negotiations
for the ear;r conclusion of a universal treaty on gen¬
eral and complete disarmament under effective inter¬
national :r-u3cl and strive to adopt appropriate meas¬
ures to redu:; international tensions and strengthen
confidence tataag States,

All States ;nail comply in good faith with their
obligations under the generally recognized principles
and rules r: international law with respect to the
maintenance ;t international peace and security, and
shall endeavour to make the United Nations security
system based aa die Charter more effective.

Nothing in tat foregoing paragraphs shall be con¬
strued as enlarging or diminishing in any way the
scope of he provisions of the Charter concerning cases
in which the use of force is lawful.

The principle that States shall settle their
international disputes by peaceful means in
such a -~.cr.ner that international peace and
security and justice are not endangered
Every 3rate shall settle its international disputes
with other states by peaceful means in such a manner
that intemattaaol peace and security and justice arc
not endangered.

States shall accordingly seek early and just settle¬
ment of their international disputes by negotiation,
inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrange¬
ments or ether peaceful means of their choice. In seek¬
ing such a serdreaea: the parties shall agree upon such
peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circum¬
stances acd uinire of the dispute.

The pardes to a dispute have the duty, in the event
of failure to reach a solution by any one of the above
peaceful r:ici. to continue to seek a settlement of
the dispute by other peaceful means agreed upon by
them.

States pardes to an international dispute, as well as
other States, shall refrain from any action which may
aggravate the situation so as to endanger the main¬
tenance of international peace and security, and shall
act in accordance with the purposes and principles of
the United Nations.

International disputes shall be settled on the basis
of the sovereign equality of States and in accordance
with the principle of free choice of means. Recourse
to, or acceptance of, a settlement procedure freely
agreed to by States with regard to existing or future
disputes to which they are parties shall not be regard¬
ed as incomeaable 'with sovereign equality.

Nothing in die foregoing paragraphs prejudices or
derogates from the applicable provisions of the Char¬
ter, in particular those relating to the pacific settle¬
ment of iotemadoaal disputes.

FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND COOPERATION AMONG STATES 791

T’.t principle concerning the July not to intervene
jn matters uiithin the domestic jurisdiction of

-*>' State, in accordance with the Charter
N; Sue; or group of States haj the right to inter-
vezi, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever,
in —t internal or external affairs of any other Sea::.
Consequently, armed intervention and ail other forms
of .a::-:r:ace or attempted threats against the per-
sor.t_.ry of the State or against its political, economic
and cultural elements, are in violation of interna-
lic.eai law.

N: State may use or encourage the use of economic.
pC-.utii or any other type of measures to coerce an-
o:zer state -a order to obtain from it the subordiaa-
t'.cz :: the exercise of its sovereign rights and to se¬
en.-; train i: advantages of any kind. Also, no State
sh:_ rrjaaue, assist, foraeot, finance, incite or tcl-
erat; subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed
cow iris the violent overthrow of the regime of an-
o: “l" or interfere in civil strife in another State.

i=: use of force to deprive peoples of their national
identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable
r:rtj and of the principle of non-intervention.

-•sty State has an inalienable right to choose its
p-t-tura!. economic, social and cultural systems, with-
O'-t .aterference in any form by another State.

N:thing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be con¬
st.-.;; os affecting the relevant provisions of the Chxr-
te; ;;ladag to the maintenance of international peace
and sestiriry.

T'-.e duty of Scares ro co-operate with one another
in accordance with the Charter
States have the duty to co-operate with one an¬
other. trr;spec:ive of the differences In their political,
ertct-mic and social systems, in the various spheres
in:t.-national relations, in order to maintain intema-
d:c£ peace and security and to pcomate international
ectcintic stability and progress, the general welfare •>:
natitrts and international co-operation free from dii-
crimlnitton based on such differences.

T a this end:

States shall co-operate wich other Scaccs in the
maintenance of international peace and security;

States shall co-operate in the promotion of uni¬
versal respect for, and observance of, human rights
and fundamental freedoms for all, and in the eltmini-
ct:n ;c all forms of racial discrimination and all forms
c: religious intolerance;

r States shall conduct their international rela¬
tin' in the economic, social, cultural, technical and
trad; fields in accordance with the principles of s;v-
ereiga equality and non-intervention;

i} States Members of the United Nations have
tit: duty to take joint and separate action in co-ap-
em’oa with the United Nations in accordance with
the relevant provisions of the Charter.

5:i:es should co-operate in the economic, social and
cultural fields as well as in the field of science and
teiknology and for the promotion of international cul-
tunl and educational progress. States should co-op-
erit: in the promotion of economic growth throughout

the world, especially that of the developing countries.

The principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-
determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of
the United Nacions, all peoples have the right freely
to determine, without external interference, their
political status and to pursue their economic, social
md cultural development, and every State has the
iuTr to respect this right in accordance wich the pro¬
visions of the Charter.

Every State has the duty Co promote, through joint
and separate action, realization of the princta!: of
rqual rights and self-determination of peoples, in ac-
tordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to
render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out
the responsibilities encrusted to it by the Charter re¬
garding the implementation of the principle, in order:

(a) To promote friendly relations and co-operadoo
among States; and

{b) To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having
du: regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples
concerned;

md bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to
alien subjugation, domination and exploitation con¬
stitutes a violation of the principle, as well as i denial
of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to die
Charter.

Every State has the duty to promote through join:
and separate accion universal respect for and observ¬
ance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in
accordance with the Charter.

The establishment of a sovereign and independent
State, the free association or integration with an in¬
dependent State or the emergence into any other
political status freely determined by a people consti¬
tute modes of implementing the right of self-deter¬
mination by that people.

Every Stace has the duty to refrain from any forci¬
ble action which deprives peoples referred to above
in the elaboration of the present principle of their
righc to self-determination and freedom and inde¬
pendence. In their actions against, and resistance to,
such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their
right to sclf-determination, such peoples are entitled
to seek and to receive support in accordance with the
purposes and principles of the Charter.

The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Gov-
eming Territory has, under the Charter, a status sep¬
arate and distinct from the territory of the State
administering it; and such separate and distinct status
under the Charter shall exist until the people of the
colony or Non-Self-Covcrning Territory have exer¬
cised their righc of self-determination in accordance
with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and
principles.

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be con¬
strued as authorizing or encouraging any action which
would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the
territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and
independent States conducting themselves in compli-

792

LEGAL QUESTION’S

ancc with :hr principle of equal rights and self-dcter-
ram a cion of peoples as described above and thus
possessed of a government representing the whole
people belor.zmg to :hc territory without distinction
as to race, creed or colour.

Every Stars uaH refrain from any action aimed at
the partial or total disruption of the national unity
and territorial integrity of any other State or coontry.

Tht pr-.ns’.ple of sovereign equality of States

All States —joy sovereign equality. They have
equal rights and duties and are equal members of the
international immunity, notwithstanding differences
of an economic, social, political or other nature.

In particular, sovereign equality includes dm fol¬
lowing elements:

(a) States are juridically equal;

(b) Each State enjoys the rights inherent in full
sovereignty;

(c) Each State aaj the duty to respect the person¬
ality of other States;

(d) The tsrritarial integrity and political inde¬
pendence of me State are inviolable;

(e) Each State his the right freely to choose and
develop its pt'iical, social, economic and cultural
systems;

(/) Each State has the duty to comply fully and
in good faith with ia international obligations and to
live in peace vim other States.

The principle that States shall fulfil in
good faith the obligations assumed by them
ir. re :ordance with the Charter

Every State has the duty to fulfil in good faith the

obhgatttm assumed by it in accordance with the
Chan:.- cc the United Nations.

Every State has the duty to fulfil in good faith ia
obligitmm under the generally recognized principles
and cries a; international law.

Every State has the duty to fulfil in good faith its
obligaftzs -under international agreements valid un¬
der the generally recognized principles and rules of
intemarnnal law.

Uherr tbltgitions arising under international agree¬
ments ire ha conflict with the obligations of Members
of the Unned Nations under the Charter of the United
Nations, me obligations under the Charter shall
prevail.

GENERAL PART

2. Di .-.rii that:

In their interpretation and application the above
principles ere interrelated and each principle should
be construed in the context of the other principles.

Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed as
prejudicing in any manner the provisions of the
Charter rr tie rights and duties of Member States
under tie Charter or the rights of peoples under the
Charter, tiling into account the elaboration of these
rights in this Declaration.

3. D'sisres further that:

The prinmples of the Charter which are embodied
in this Declaration constitute basic principles of
intemafe-na! law, and consequently appeals to all
States ta be guided by these principles in their inter¬
national ctemuc: and to develop their mutual rela¬
tions ca me basis of the strict observance of these
principles.

CHAPTER IH

THE QUESTION OF DEFINING AGGRESSION

CONSIDERATION BY
SPECIAL COMMITTEE

In accordance with a General Assembly de¬
cision of 12 December 1969, 1 the Special Com¬
mittee on the Question of Defining Aggression
continued its work in 1970.

Meeting a: Geneva, Switzerland, from 13
July to. 14 Auras: 1970, the Special Commirtce
discussed the three draft proposals which, had
been submitted to it at its 1969 session, namely:
(1) a USSR proposal; (2) a 13-power proposal
(Colombia, Cyprus, Ecuador, Ghana, Guyana,
Haiti, Iran, Madagascar, Mexico, Spain,
Uganda, Uruguay and Yugoslavia); and (3)
a six-power proposal (Australia, Canada, Italy,
Japan, the United Kingdom and the United
States) . 2

After a general discussion of the three pro¬
posals. the Special Committee decided to con¬
sider them paragraph by paragraph according
to the concepts on which they were based.

The main points considered by the Special
Committee were the following:

(1; Application of the definition of aggression:
(a) tit; definition and the power of the Security
Council: '») political entities to which the defini¬
tion sbsuld apply.

(2) Acts proposed for inclusion in the definition:
(a) the question of “direct or indirect” aggression;

1 See Y.U.V., 1969, p. 77+, text of resolution
2 549 (XXTV'j.

1 Ibid., pp. 768-71, for information oa the draft
proposal*.